Intelligent design: could we do better?

[pocaracas]

Who's Nature?

Good question.

Is this Nature a person? An entity? Something that possesses reason, intent, knowledge?

[Darth]

Intelligent design: could we do better?

Hell yeah!

A four year old with an Etch-A-Sketch could do better.

Don't four year olds tend to draw people as heads with arms and legs sticking out? No bodies whatsoever? Think of issues involved in going to the toilet.

I would give us retractable armour plating, echolocation, 2 livers, a prehensile tail and gills of some sort. Also, more resilient organs.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Good question.

Is this Nature a person? An entity? Something that possesses reason, intent, knowledge?

More good questions.

What do you think?

[pocaracas]

I think Nature is just an "umbrella name" for the whole set of physical phenomena in the Universe.
From this, we can see that "Nature" has no intent, no conscience, no reason, no knowledge... is not an entity.

So flowers have come about through such physical phenomena, without any intent, reason to be, nor design.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I think Nature is just an "umbrella name" for the whole set of physical phenomena in the Universe.
From this, we can see that "Nature" has no intent, no conscience, no reason, no knowledge... is not an entity.

So flowers have come about through such physical phenomena, without any intent, reason to be, nor design.

Ok, your belief is fair enough. Still, you can admit that the umbrella of physical phenomena in the universe are smarter than we are and can create lots of amazing and beautiful things that we can't.

[pocaracas]

I think Nature is just an "umbrella name" for the whole set of physical phenomena in the Universe.
From this, we can see that "Nature" has no intent, no conscience, no reason, no knowledge... is not an entity.

So flowers have come about through such physical phenomena, without any intent, reason to be, nor design.

Ok, your belief is fair enough. Still, you can admit that the umbrella of physical phenomena in the universe are smarter than we are and can create lots of amazing and beautiful things that we can't.

I don't think "smart" has anything to do with it.
Complex, yes... that is why we can't replicate it... we like simple things.... Einstein himself said so:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

[jonb]

I would like you to think about an artistic approach to this conundrum. The most horrible pictures are those pained by people who want to do nothing more than paint a pretty picture, these things have no substance, no meaning and are worthless, apart from maybe brightening the corner of a dark room, art is about more than that, it has a purpose. Now on the other hand who has not sat in front of an open fire and imagined all the images playing about in it, true like the pretty picture it has no meaning, but we can as it has no meaning impose images an meaning onto it. The pretty picture fails, as being designed and lacking meaning there is an emptiness to it because we know its designer failed to make anything with it. If you wish to design a universe you have to first give it meaning, fluffing about over weather a thing in it has got this or that sort of nasal cavity is to entirely miss the point.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I would like you to think about an artistic approach to this conundrum. The most horrible pictures are those pained by people who want to do nothing more than paint a pretty picture, these things have no substance, no meaning and are worthless, apart from maybe brightening the corner of a dark room, art is about more than that, it has a purpose. Now on the other hand who has not sat in front of an open fire and imagined all the images playing about in it, true like the pretty picture it has no meaning, but we can as it has no meaning impose images an meaning onto it. The pretty picture fails, as being designed and lacking meaning there is an emptiness to it because we know its designer failed to make anything with it. If you wish to design a universe you have to first give it meaning, fluffing about over weather a thing in it has got this or that sort of nasal cavity is to entirely miss the point.

So if the universe is empty, that's great, because it allows us the freedom to interpret it as we like.

But if the universe is designed, that's boring, because as a design it's boring, like a lame pretty picture. Have I understood your point? Because I'm not sure I'm completely clear.

I find the universe rather amazing and awe inspiring. My example of a flower is a simple, but I think profound, one. We use tons of flowers to decorate, and so I'm examining different varieties of flowers all the time. I can't agree that flowers are part of a "boring" picture. Not only are they too complex to replicate. They're also gorgeous and they smell amazing.

I also can't assume there's not meaning or purpose to the universe. Given the nature of my experience of the world, it's tough for me to imagine I came from nothing, I'm headed to nothing, and there's no inherent reason for the life I'm living. When I perceive things that are seemingly purposeless, or which seem to indicate a "stupid design", I imagine it's my own failure to understand them, rather than imagine that it indicates that such things are inherently purposeless.

Anyway, it's quite an "umbrella of physical phenomenon" out there. Purposeful and intelligent or not.

[Whateverist]

Anyway, it's quite an "umbrella of physical phenomenon" out there. Purposeful and intelligent or not.

Agreed, wondrous. (But not purposeful or intelligent me thinks.)

[Ryantology]

Ok, your belief is fair enough. Still, you can admit that the umbrella of physical phenomena in the universe are smarter than we are and can create lots of amazing and beautiful things that we can't.

I'll admit no such thing. Apparent design is not proof of intelligence.