Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

King Follet Discourses


Tarski

Recommended Posts

That is what the battle is over- whether or not intelligent information originated from an intelligent source to begin with or if it was generated randomly. ID theories do not espouse philosophies as to what, when, how intelligent information came about as some falsely think so on this board. ID does not claim that intelligent information- like that of a cell was invented x amount of years ago, no, it only claims that intelligent information- call it "design" in nature if you will, came about because of an intelligent source preceeding it.

What if intelligence itself progress or "evolves"? What is the "correct LDS" position then? Isn't something like that a totally LDS view- that we were intelligences and then spirits and then souls (spirits with bodies) and as gods in embryo which may mature into exalted glorified beings?

Isn't such a transformation a little like evolution itself? Could not exalted beings co-exist and interact with their "embryos" all of whom are progressing together toward greater intelligence? Suppose that is just want intelligence does- transform itself into ever greater types of beings without a plan, just as its "natural" course?

Link to comment

When God gives us revelation and our religion is to live by what he is telling us would you then say that our culture is the same as his, or is it some other?

Commandments are "culture". That is what civilizes us. It's a chicken/egg problem to decide if the commandments came before the culture or culture came before the commandments- it is actually irrelevant and depends on how you want to see it. God can be seen as the one who gives us "culture" by revelation. I think that is what sets Adam apart- culture. He is the "giver of names", the creator of language and human context- or culture.

Link to comment

Most of the problems I see in this long post is in disguising the real interpretation of what Intelligent Designer really proposes. In "ID" theory, the word "design" is used in the context to refute that complex "designs" found in life and nature were randomly created by Darwinian evolution. "Design" in this context refers to material (usually biologic material) that has both intelligent purpose and design elements. ID doesn't propose that it could ever find the beginning of the design, only that it was designed, not randomly generated. Basically its like this-

Take the cell for example. In the cell is a design. The design is the functioning blueprint for life. It is a "design" because it carries both purpose and intelligent function and communicative abilities that carry out work. There are many examples of both naturally occuring designs and intelligently occuring designs in biology and nature. The snowflake is a naturally occuring design in nature that doesn't carry intelligent information in it. The cell on the other hand is a design in biology that carries with it intelligent information.

"Design" doesn't implicitly mean that it was invented. A design can be handed down from one generation to the next infinitly and still be called a "design". In the case of DNA, it is thus a design handed down from generation to the next. Because it carries intelligent information it is thus an intelligent design, not a natural design as one finds in a snowflake.

ID theory thus establishes itself on this basis that intelligent designs in nature- like that of the structure of DNA was not randomly generated. ID'ers do not believe it is possible to randomly generate intelligence or intelligent information from random acts in nature as Darwinian evolution proposes. That is what the battle is over- whether or not intelligent information originated from an intelligent source to begin with or if it was generated randomly. ID theories do not espouse philosophies as to what, when, how intelligent information came about as some falsely think so on this board. ID does not claim that intelligent information- like that of a cell was invented x amount of years ago, no, it only claims that intelligent information- call it "design" in nature if you will, came about because of an intelligent source preceeding it.

Thus, Intelligent Design as a theory is completely backed up by LDS doctrinal claims about eternal intelligence. We can squabble all day over the semantics of "design" and how it is used but any real knowledgable person on the matter already knows that the ID/evolution debate is entirely over our origins on this planet- whether we originated froma purely random and unguided process in nature or whether we originated because of the designs of an intelligence. LDS doctrine denys factually that we were randomly generated, instead LDS doctrine factually states that our origins is because of an intelligent design to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life. Is this what it is really about? Is it a "design" of God to bring life into existance on this planet? Whats the squabble over then? Isn't it a mute point?

Sorry, your use of "design" is a misuse. There is no design in the human body - it as always existed. Complexity or no complexity, no one designed it.

Evolution isn't random either. No matter how many times this misconception is corrected, it persists.

Some LDS are creationists of the old school, others believe in science, but I think it's clear that you can't be in harmony with the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith and subscribe to ID.

Link to comment

When God gives us revelation and our religion is to live by what he is telling us would you then say that our culture is the same as his, or is it some other?

Think of the story of the people of Enoch. Their culture was so like heaven they were translated. Literalists can believe it happened that way, non-literalists can think it was a myth. But it really doesn't matter either way. We can't know either way, so it is irrelevant.

Link to comment

Think of the story of the people of Enoch. Their culture was so like heaven they were translated. Literalists can believe it happened that way, non-literalists can think it was a myth. But it really doesn't matter either way. We can't know either way, so it is irrelevant.

You just said their culture was so like heaven that they were translated, and if you really meant what you said, you would know which way was the right way to know.

The fact that other people don't believe you when you say what you know is the truth shouldn't keep you from beleiving what you know to be true.

You sound like you're trying to straddle a fence, or something like that, otherwise I think you would be telling people how they can know what is true.

Link to comment

You just said their culture was so like heaven that they were translated, and if you really meant what you said, you would know which way was the right way to know.

The fact that other people don't believe you when you say what you know is the truth shouldn't keep you from beleiving what you know to be true.

You sound like you're trying to straddle a fence, or something like that, otherwise I think you would be telling people how they can know what is true.

He is more careful about the word know than you are and less hung up on literalism and orthodoxy. I'm even more careful which is why I am sure you don't know what you think you do.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...