How do you detect "design"?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Intended or unintended, they ARE 'design'. The term 'design' just refers to a set of organizing parameters that when adhered to will result in a specific outcome. Design can be natural and unintended, or it can be deliberately imposed by conscious intent. Either way, it's still 'design'.

Everything that exists, exists by design. The question is whether or not there was conscious intent behind that design. And we have no way of knowing this. However, the results clearly imply a degree of sophistication that would reasonably include conscious intent. So most humans presume that there was or is a conscious intent to existence.

Please stop with this silly shennanigans.
Everybody here but you, it seems, understands what is being meant by the word "design" and how it doesn't mean "natural design" like "the design of a snowflake".

Please stop with muddying the waters with this semantic drivel.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes ......granted
See how easy it is to answer with a simple "yes "



...
The data (numbers and letters)that you insert in QR generator could be ether designed or non designed .......yes or no?

No, they are always designed, because all numbers and letters are designed as they are that. It is a general feature of numbers and letters.
Now they can be designed as ordelrly according to the program in the computer who can read the code or not orderly, but in both cases they are designed. Just as orderly or not in regards to the program.

 

[PureX]

Please stop with this silly shennanigans.
Everybody here but you, it seems, understands what is being meant by the word "design" and how it doesn't mean "natural design" like "the design of a snowflake".

Please stop with muddying the waters with this semantic drivel.

You don't own the language, and you don't decide what the words mean. Nor do you represent everyone else in that regard. So your pouting and whining because a logical understanding of the term does not serve your bias is not any concern of mine. Or anyone else's.

Nor is the fact that you cannot logically explain why we all must adhere to your biased definition of a word.

 

[shunyadragon]

Cool. That makes you an agnostic. But it doesn't tell us if you believe a god exists or not.

View attachment 91914



I'm not sure what's so confusing to you.
An atheist is someone who doesn't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe a god exists?".

I really don't know what is so unclear about that. I have no idea how to simplify that further.


I don't know anymore. You keep arguing in vague terms.

Problem: My statement had nothing to with the above. Your diagrwm shows what people believe, and not what can be objectively known. This has nothing to do with what I personally believe concerning the existence of Gods.

I do not believe the existence or non-existence of God can be 'known.;

Their is no such thing as falsifiable hypotheses, or sound logical arguments to determine whether Gods exist or not. It is a matter of belief, and not what can be 'known' or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please stop with this silly shennanigans.
Everybody here but you, it seems, understands what is being meant by the word "design" and how it doesn't mean "natural design" like "the design of a snowflake".

Please stop with muddying the waters with this semantic drivel.

As for that silly shennanigans how do you know that as a fact?

Now we agrre how you use design, but we don't agree when your start using your feelings as if they matters for all humans. You are not that special and neither am I.
So for all those words that reflect your feelings, if you want us to consider it differently, please show that those are facts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Problem: My statement had nothing to with the above. Your diagrwm shows what people believe, and not what can be objectively known. This has nothing to do with what I personally believe concerning the existence of Gods.

I do not believe the existence or non-existence of God can be 'known.;

Their is no such thing as falsifiable hypotheses, or sound logical arguments to determine whether Gods exist or not. It is a matter of belief, and not what can be 'known' or not.

Well, that is what you believe. I happen to believe the same, but I don't known that for all time, whether God can be known or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Intended or unintended, they ARE 'design'. The term 'design' just refers to a set of organizing parameters that when adhered to will result in a specific outcome. Design can be natural and unintended, or it can be deliberately imposed by conscious intent. Either way, it's still 'design'.

'Just refers?' This is not the definition of Design. There is a problem with people who make up definitions to justify theiragenda.

Design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A design is the concept of or proposal for an object, process, or system. Design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, though it is sometimes used to refer to the nature of something – its design. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design.

Everything that exists, exists by design. The question is whether or not there was conscious intent behind that design. And we have no way of knowing this. However, the results clearly imply a degree of sophistication that would reasonably include conscious intent. So most humans presume that there was or is a conscious intent to existence.

This is where the religious argument for a 'conscious intent' of a 'Designer' and "Intelligent Design,' is shoe horned by a false definition for 'Design'

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, that is what you believe. I happen to believe the same, but I don't known that for all time, whether God can be known or not.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I believe concerning the existence of Gods. The problem remains it is an issue of 'belief and faith' because of the lack of objective evidence and sound logical arguments for the existence or non-existence of Gods, and not objectively determined to be 'known.'.

I will add that there is severe problem with the belief in hands on anthropomorphic Gods of ancient religions, and the narratives of their personal involvement in the universe. This problem is so severe it justifies the belief that these ancient anthropomorphic Gods do not exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Problem: My statement had nothing to with the above. Your diagrwm shows what people believe, and not what can be objectively known. This has nothing to do with what I personally believe concerning the existence of Gods.

I do not believe the existence or non-existence of God can be 'known.;

Their is no such thing as falsifiable hypotheses, or sound logical arguments to determine whether Gods exist or not. It is a matter of belief, and not what can be 'known' or not.

The diagram shows both.
What people think can be known (or not) about gods and what they believe concerning their existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As for that silly shennanigans how do you know that as a fact?

Now we agrre how you use design, but we don't agree when your start using your feelings as if they matters for all humans. You are not that special and neither am I.
So for all those words that reflect your feelings, if you want us to consider it differently, please show that those are facts.

You stop with your shenannigans also.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You stop with your shenannigans also.

Yes, we both do that. So stop using feelings as if they are not that when we do science and I will stop haunting you for it.
But the moment you start doing in effect norms and normality in combation with sicence, it is game on again.
That is as good as I can do it.
In a sense I use feelings as much as you.

 

[PureX]

'Just refers?' This is not the definition of Design. There is a problem with people who make up definitions to justify theiragenda.

Design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A design is the concept of or proposal for an object, process, or system. Design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, though it is sometimes used to refer to the nature of something – its design. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design.

So, this definition is contradicting itself. It proclaims intent, and then denies it "sometimes". See, this is why I don't try to justify a definition by running to the dictionary. (Or Wikipedia.) They aren't logical definitions They're only popular. And that almost always includes a popular bias.

This is where the religious argument for a 'conscious intent' of a 'Designer' and "Intelligent Design,' is shoe horned by a false definition for 'Design'

I agree. Which is why I keep pointing out that design does not logically require a conscious designer. But the zealots on both sides of the debate need the designer proposition to fuel their unending battle. So they get upset when I point out that design does not logically necessitate a designer. It may IMPLY one, but it does not mandate, logically, that one must exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't own the language

Speak to yourself.

, and you don't decide what the words mean

Indeed I don't.
You might want to take your own advice.

Context matters. Ignoring context, like you are doing, is dishonest at worst and ignorant at best. Pick what you are doing.

Nor do you represent everyone else in that regard.

I'm the author of the OP. I think I know what is meant by the words used. This is the second time in this thread that you are trying to muddy the waters by making this silly semantic argument. I told you before what your mistake was, so this time you are without excuse. You know what was being meant by the OP because I clarified it once to you already. So to me that means that we can scratch honest ignorance from the list, unless you have the short term memory of a gold fish.

Curiously all other participants in this thread didn't require this clarification and knew exactly what was meant by the OP with no need for further clarification on my part.

Maybe you should reflect on that and consider that the problem is on your end.

So your pouting and whining because a logical understanding of the term does not serve your bias is not any concern of mine. Or anyone else's.

There is no bias here. But there is context. Context that you are deliberately ignoring. It's almost like you are deliberately trying to be argumentative and obtuse just for the sake of it. Almost.

It looks very childish from where I sit.

Nor is the fact that you cannot logically explain why we all must adhere to your biased definition of a word.

Again, there is no bias. There is context.
Again, everybody else participating in this thread knows what is meant by the word used. Everybody understands the context and responds accordingly.

You are the only one who seems to insist on pretending to misunderstand it.


Now, if you could just stop playing this stupid game and stop trying to derail the thread, that would be great.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a straw man because nobody is arguing the opposite……………………I agree with what you said (the red text above)

What I said is that the letters and numbers that you insert in the QR generator could be designed or non-design (random for example)

Why do you think this is important?

Nobody is denying that all QRs are design………….all i am saying is that the data (numbers and letters) mayo r may not be designed………………….this is not supposed to be controversial nor hard to understand.

You're supposed to be sharing with us your system for detecting design in nature.
Then you give an example of something we know is designed from the get-go, and then tell me that if a QR code doesn't open a website then we "don't know" if it was designed or not. Of course we know it was designed, regardless of whether or not it opens a website.

This is also a straw man………

It's a flaw in your argument.

What I said is that opening a web site implies design………………..but not opening a website doesn’t imply no – design



In other words if it opens a website the data (letters and numbers) where designed

If it doesn’t open a web site…………then we don’t know

No, if it doesn't open a website, we still know that the QR code was designed! This is why I keep explaining to you about the QR code that I designed once that didn't work properly and didn't open the website I wanted it to open. That doesn't mean we "don't know" if the QR code was designed. We still know it was designed. By me.

..... this is not hard.........so please stop pretending that you dont understand

Stop telling me that I'm pretending this or that. You don't know me.

Maybe you need to start facing facts that your assertions aren't holding up under scrutiny.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, this definition is contradicting itself. It proclaims intent, and then denies it "sometimes". See, this is why I don't try to justify a definition by running to the dictionary. (Or Wikipedia.) They aren't logical definitions They're only popular. And that almost always includes a popular bias

This is the accepted definition in agreement with other definitions from other sources. You misrepresent the "sometimes" as referring design as an adjective. ALL definitions describe the intent of a designer despite your selective misuse of 'sometimes', but your contrived personal definition without a source.

What is a Design Concept? A definition

A design concept refers to the idea or plan that guides the design decisions being made in a specific project.

www.wix.com

A design concept refers to the idea or plan that guides the design decisions being made in a specific project. In order to create a cohesive vision, design concepts ensure that each element in the project reflects the goals and values of a brand, product or service. They’re often developed through research, brainstorming sessions and collaboration with stakeholders to ensure the design meets all the needs of its intended audience.

Design concepts can range from simple sketches to detailed diagrams with descriptive notes. It all depends on the scope of the project and the team’s approach to achieving their goals. Regardless of the complexity of a design concept, it’s essential for achieving successful results.

I agree. Which is why I keep pointing out that design does not logically require a conscious designer. But the zealots on both sides of the debate need the designer proposition to fuel their unending battle. So they get upset when I point out that design does not logically necessitate a designer. It may IMPLY one, but it does not mandate, logically, that one must exist.

Your biased statement went beyond simply Using "imply" and your statement: " However, the results clearly imply a degree of sophistication that would reasonably include conscious intent."

 

[SkepticThinker]

To have a QR code and test it, requires that you have a computer with a camera and a program. All of that is designed besides the QR code.
Now if your test works the the computer, program and code all correspond to the universe as such.
So for the universe which part is the computer, which part is the program and which part is the QR code?
That is what I want to know.

Me too. I've seen you ask for it several times now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes ......granted
See how easy it is to answer with a simple "yes "



...

The data (numbers and letters)that you insert in QR generator could be ether designed or non designed .......yes or no?

The data is designed as well, regardless of whether or not it opens a website.

Numbers and letters were also invented by humans as a means to communicate with each other. They are also designed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Me too. I've seen you ask for it several times now.

Well, I don't think I will get a positive answer because I can't figure out how it should work for the universe, but then I am not the smartest human around.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Wasn’t SETI a scientific endeavor? They were searching for evidence of intelligence. How? What were these scientists looking for?

They were looking for evidence of intelligence within the universe. This is different from the ID program which was looking for an intelligent designer of the universe.

I keep hearing this, but I’ve never seen any credible demonstrations; except the “mouse-trap-reduced-to-tie-clasp” one. Counter-arguments aren’t demonstrations.

Are you saying that you've never seen a demonstration of the rebuttal to any claim of irreducible complexity apart from Behe's mousetrap claim, as when Miller manually reduced a mousetrap piece by piece and showed how it could function as a tie clip, for example?

What analogous demonstration would you expect to see for biological systems? Would you like to see parts removed from eyes or flagella and see that they still functioned as with a mousetrap? How would that work or look? They didn't come into being by adding a series of parts. There was never a human eye lacking one of the major components like a lens or a retina. The incremental increases as these structures evolved simultaneously.

Before a flagellum was a flagellum, it was something that looked like a flagellum but had a different function. What would you like to have demonstrated? The previous structure and function? All you'll get there is diagrams. Nobody is going to be able to pull a piece off of a flagellum and show it going from a propeller to a needle the way Miller did with a mousetrap (credit to McDonald for developing the demonstration Miller presented on a video).

And what would you like to see in a demonstration of the evolution of the immune system or the clotting cascade? Once again, all you'll get are diagrams, not demonstrations.

But you can find those discussions and diagrams if you are interested. Here's something on the evolution of the immune system with a reference to Behe and the Dover trial. It's quite technical in nature.

You don't own the language, and you don't decide what the words mean.

His objection was valid. You were muddying the waters using equivocation. You were using a different definition of design than most mean when they use the word.

From the Wiki link shunya provided: "Design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, though it is sometimes used to refer to the nature of something – its design. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design."

The first sentence identifies two different meanings and uses for the word and indicates which is the more common meaning. The creationists are trying a verbal sleigh-of hand. When they say design, they mean intelligent design - the first definition. Then you come along and offer the second definition, which is not the one creationists are using.

would you and Shunyadragon say that humans are monkeys, according to -- Cladistics?

This is a deflection from what is really claimed, namely, that human beings have monkey ancestors. Whether one calls human beings monkeys or not is irrelevant. That usage has a very narrow application limited to taxonomy and cladistics, where once a monkey, always a monkey. In any other context, monkey and humans are considered distinct types of animals. To be repeatedly pursuing this matter is to deflect from the real difference in opinion between biologists and creationists, which is not whether humans can be properly called monkeys still, but rather, whether one evolved from the other.

"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids."

This is full of error. Humans DID evolve from monkey, albeit not directly. We are apes and we evolved from pre-human apes, which in turn evolved from ancient monkeys. And evolution didn't include a common ancestral ape that diverged into gorilla-chimp line and a human line. That bifurcation generated a gorilla line and a human-chimp line, the latter then bifurcating into a chimp-bonobo line and a human line, and then the chimp-bonobo line bifurcating int the chimp line and the bonobo line.

The interesting thing is that the creation of planet Earth and the process in which it was adapted for life according to Genesis, was like a program that begins to be created in several steps. Every so often it was checked to see if it was working correctly, like when God declares each process "good." The creation of the program lasted 6 stages until the supreme work on earth was finished: human beings. Then it is said that God ended that program and left it running on its own. It's still executing. That program has been so excellent, that it still works just as it did when it was finished programming

We can remove gods from this and it describes the naturalistic understanding. The universe unfolded naturalistically according to the laws of nature, which serve as that program.

Keep sleeping like this, the catastrophe is coming and you still continue to believe the next dream somebody had.

Catastrophes have come and gone for millennia. Christianity has always attempted to make bank threatening humanity with annihilation, none more than your denomination, the Jehovah's Witnesses. But look how powerful it is to convince somebody of what you believe about the future. Once that happens, one develops a dependence on them to save him from impending doom. It's not fair to them, but being fair isn't their goal, is it?

Recently, I was visited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The visit began by assuming as you do that the world was a terrible place, getting worse. They seemed to assume that I agreed with that. I did not. I explained that although many live difficult lives, the world is also a wonderful place for many, and that I was happy being in it. That was literally the end of the discussion. They said thank you and moved along, which surprised me. Why did they give up so quickly and easily? Were they unprepared for and stymied by my answer? That didn't seem possible, but what else could it be? My point is that if I didn't see the world as going to hell in a bucket, it seems that they thought they had nothing to say to me. And they were correct.

"To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

 

[YoursTrue]

Science does not have all the answer for everything.It isa work in progress and always changing with new knowledge,

Let's begin with understanding what Quantum Nothing and Quantum Gravity is in reality how Hawking described it.

Basically Quantum Nothing undlies everything in the boundless universe. at the smallest Quantum scale. The following is another explanation of this world of Quantum Nothing: How Could the Big Bang Arise From Nothing?.

But how did these particles come to exist in the first place? Quantum field theory tells us that even a vacuum, supposedly corresponding to empty spacetime, is full of physical activity in the form of energy fluctuations. These fluctuations can give rise to particles popping out, only to be disappear shortly after. This may sound like a mathematical quirk rather than real physics, but such particles have been spotted in countless experiments.

The spacetime vacuum state is seething with particles constantly being created and destroyed, apparently “out of nothing.” But perhaps all this really tells us is that the quantum vacuum is (despite its name) a something rather than a nothing. The philosopher David Albert has memorably criticized accounts of the Big Bang which promise to get something from nothing in this way.

Suppose we ask: where did spacetime itself arise from? Then we can go on turning the clock yet further back, into the truly ancient “Planck epoch”—a period so early in the universe’s history that our best theories of physics break down. This era occurred only one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. At this point, space and time themselves became subject to quantum fluctuations. Physicists ordinarily work separately with quantum mechanics, which rules the microworld of particles, and with general relativity, which applies on large, cosmic scales. But to truly understand the Planck epoch, we need a complete theory of quantum gravity, merging the two.

How the singularity forms that is the seed of a universe is not entirely known. We can observe Black Holes from with singularities and merge and grow over time One possibility is the black holes in a dead universe merge to form a singularity collapse and expand for a new universe. Something like "Roger Penrose has proposed one intriguing but controversial model for a cyclical universe dubbed “conformal cyclic cosmology.”

Hawking's model evolved from the Penerose model called the Hawking-Penrosemodel.

More to follow.

I did look up information about Quantum Nothingness (or Quantum Nothing) and find it very difficult to comprehend. On the other hand, to say that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," it doesn't say anything about what was 'there' or not there in a manner of speaking. So -- whether it was created from Quantum Nothing(ness) I really do not think anyone can tell. I understand how an atheist or someone who enjoys thinking about these things might figure it, maybe. While I cannot speak with Dr. Hawking now (because he's dead), if I could have, I would imagine he'd have a problem believing in God based on his own situation, which I consider tragic anyway. But perhaps his disbelief went beyond that and figured, well, since he believed and posited on the idea that no God exists, then of course, some minds like to consider 'well, how did it happen' physically? Which is not the worst thing to think about the physics, but to then figure ok, it was Quantum Nathing is a bit mind-bending for me. But! and sorry this post is longer than usual, if you want to explain to me in a slow discourse about Quantum Nothing or Nothingness, that would be ok. Assuming my finite mind can absorb or take it in. Some things give me a slight stomach ache.