Couldn't design it if you tried

[ecco]

...science has attempted to explain miralces...

I you mean science has come up with rational explanations for supposed miracles, then I agree.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

science has attempted to explain miralces
some of that discussion sounds plausible

but the Will must be behind it
or the event would not stand out

and yeah.....if ever I see a Man walk on water
I would follow Him
I would not let Him out of my sight
I would hardly dare to sleep

You are drifting away from the topic. Earlier, you said:

"you can't allow yourself to break the rules of reality if you want your creation to hold true"

Are you still sticking by this? Do you deny the miracles that broke the rules of reality?

 

[Al Ibn Al Amra]

You have to made it .

 

[Thief]

You are drifting away from the topic. Earlier, you said:

"you can't allow yourself to break the rules of reality if you want your creation to hold true"

Are you still sticking by this? Do you deny the miracles that broke the rules of reality?

the miracles do appear to do so
but as science has attempted to show.......it seems more a flex of circumstances

or a flex of Will to influence our lives here in this world

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

the miracles do appear to do so

No natural laws are broken when humans make up stories.

 

[Thief]

No natural laws are broken when humans make up stories.

and no natural Will of God has been removed

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

and no natural Will of God has been removed

What "Will of God"? Where is the evidence for this will?

 

[Audie]

What "Will of God"? Where is the evidence for this will?

It is all make believe

 

[Thief]

It is all make believe

did you say?.......make.....

if you believe (anything) you have the will to do so

at the point of singularity.....how much will does it take to say......I AM!

apparently a universe of will

 

[Audie]

did you say?.......make.....

if you believe (anything) you have the will to do so

at the point of singularity.....how much will does it take to say......I AM!

apparently a universe of will

Is this a case of enigmatosis, or obscurantism?

 

[Pudding]

The only "artificial evidence" would be evidence falsely planted by your proposed designer it appears. One has to treat evidence as real unless one has a good reason to suspect otherwise.

Please elaborate the artificial evidence you are referring to. Furthermore, if a designer exists, how do you determine whether the artificial evidence was falsely planted by the designer, or the artificial evidence is just a trace left behind (not falsely planted).

You do not seem to understand that if you want to claim that there is a designer, right now we have determined that at best he is rather incompetent, then you need to support your claim. Supposing is worthless.

I do not make any claim whether there is a designer or not, i cannot even verify whether any designer exists or not exists, i discuss about this designer hypothetically.

I already present a few situations how a competent designer would create things which contains incompetent functions or design.

I'm not claiming those situations happens in reality, they're only a hypothesis.

I don't have the belief that whether those situations are real or not real.

I will list a few hypothesis here:
(1) The designer is incompetent, he lacks skill, knowledge and power. He creates life, design the process of evolution. Because he is incompetent, the life he creates also ends up incompetent.
(2) The designer is competent, he has great skill, knowledge and enormous of power. He creates life, design the process of evolution. If he is competent, how come the life he creates ends up incompetent? Maybe because he thinks it's boring to always do things right, or he is a cruel/malice designer, he likes to see his creation suffers, or other reasons.

I don't have the belief that a designer exists, nor i have the belief that hypothesis (1) or (2) are real. I'm not claiming (1) or (2) are real. I cannot verify which one are real,

You otoh, wants to claims that (2) are false, (1) is real. You're supposing, not me.

To make your error more clear think how you would react is instead of using the phrase "designer" someone used the phrase "universe farting pixies" . Go ahead switch the two phrases in one of your posts and see if you would believe in universe farting pixies if one had no reliable evidence at all for them.

Maybe universe farting pixies is the creator, or maybe not. That is a statement i cannot verify. The designer is just a label, anyone can feel free to switch it to whatever they see fit. Again, i don't have the belief that those hypothesis i have provided is real or not real, or whether universe farting pixies or any other monster or non-monster creator exists. That is a misunderstanding of yours.

 

[Pudding]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Seems we have to approach it via what kinds of mechanisms are available in the physical universe. In my latest thread I propose a way.

That's not easy to understand, maybe i will read it some other day.

Also, we should reject ideas involving a micro-manager God needing to perform mathematical calculations for each tiniest interaction of matter.

Why? What evidence would eliminate the possibility that those ideas are real or not real, how do you verify it? Because you think there is no mechanism available for this designer to use in his designing and creating, therefor those ideas are rule out?

The mathematical calculations are impossible.

If a designer exists, how do you verify whether the mathematical calculations are posibble or impossible for the designer to figure out?

Also, I find it philosophically unsatisfying that God would be a micro-manager performing these calculations.

You're unsatisfy with the hypothesis that God would be a micro-manager performing these calculations, therefor the hypothesis is rule out? What are your points?

I don't believe the mathematical calculations are possible, no matter how many gods are performing the calculations.

How do you verify whether the mathematical calculations are possible or impossible no matter how many gods are performing the calculations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please elaborate the artificial evidence you are referring to. Furthermore, if a designer exists, how do you determine whether the artificial evidence was falsely planted by the designer, or the artificial evidence is just a trace left behind (not falsely planted).


I do not make any claim whether there is a designer or not, i cannot even verify whether any designer exists or not exists, i discuss about this designer hypothetically.

I already present a few situations how a competent designer would create things which contains incompetent functions or design.

I'm not claiming those situations happens in reality, they're only a hypothesis.

I don't have the belief that whether those situations are real or not real.

I will list a few hypothesis here:
(1) The designer is incompetent, he lacks skill, knowledge and power. He creates life, design the process of evolution. Because he is incompetent, the life he creates also ends up incompetent.
(2) The designer is competent, he has great skill, knowledge and enormous of power. He creates life, design the process of evolution. If he is competent, how come the life he creates ends up incompetent? Maybe because he thinks it's boring to always do things right, or he is a cruel/malice designer, he likes to see his creation suffers, or other reasons.

I don't have the belief that a designer exists, nor i have the belief that hypothesis (1) or (2) are real. I'm not claiming (1) or (2) are real. I cannot verify which one are real,

You otoh, wants to claims that (2) are false, (1) is real. You're supposing, not me.


Maybe universe farting pixies is the creator, or maybe not. That is a statement i cannot verify. The designer is just a label, anyone can feel free to switch it to whatever they see fit. Again, i don't have the belief that those hypothesis i have provided is real or not real, or whether universe farting pixies or any other monster or non-monster creator exists. That is a misunderstanding of yours.

Too much nonsense to deal with in one post.

Just one question, how would you test your "hypotheses"? If you can't test them you misused the term.

 

[Pudding]

Too much nonsense to deal with in one post.

You're just getting rude, i see no point in continue the conversation with you. This will be my last reply to you, feel free to continue to insult and have your last words, i'll not read it. ignore

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're just getting rude, i see no point in continue the conversation with you.

How was I rude? It takes much longer to properly correct an error than it takes to make one. That would make your post rude. I found a key misunderstanding on your part in your post and asked you to defend it. Instead you falsely accused me of being rude. Now it only looks like you are running away.

 

[Etritonakin]

Couldn't design it if you tried

Seems to me, regarding the origins of biological life and subsequent evolution, even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today.

For example, how could this intelligent designer have choreographed the structure of the brain with its neural network? Or respiration with its lengthy process of converting ADP to ATP using the energy from glucose?

And what mechanism would this intelligent designer have used to "poke" at the molecules to coerce them to bend to his/her/its will? Pushing them with a metaphorical finger?

Same way we do things -but bigger and better -and by designing atoms to interact as they do.

Biblically, the way God acts could be described as fiat -a more direct/different level of interface making a physical body unnecessary.

 

[gnostic]

Seems like a designer with conscious intent would be better than a system with no intent.

Where are the evidences for intent?

Where are the evidences for this Designer?

You continued to make wild claims about creation and design, but continued to ignore that you have no evidences to support the existence of this Brahman of yours.

You are no better than the Young Earth Creationists or the advocates of Intelligent Design from the Discovery Institute. Like them you make wild claims, that have no substances, no evidences.

 

[George-ananda]

Where are the evidences for intent?

Where are the evidences for this Designer?

You continued to make wild claims about creation and design, but continued to ignore that you have no evidences to support the existence of this Brahman of yours.

You are no better than the Young Earth Creationists or the advocates of Intelligent Design from the Discovery Institute. Like them you make wild claims, that have no substances, no evidences.

You seem a little feisty today!

What I meant was I would rather live in a universe with an intelligent plan than in one of randomness.

I think things like DNA and the mindboggling complexity of life is most reasonably understood as the result of intention as opposed to chance but I am not saying 'chance' can be ruled out as impossible either.

Well, as to your last part. I personally consider my views better than Young Earth Creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem a little feisty today!

What I meant was I would rather live in a universe with an intelligent plan than in one of randomness.

I think things like DNA and the mindboggling complexity of life is most reasonably understood as the result of intention as opposed to chance but I am not saying 'chance' can be ruled out as impossible either.

Well, as to your last part. I personally consider my views better than Young Earth Creationists.

You presented a false dichotomy.

 

[George-ananda]

You presented a false dichotomy.

Explain?