• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do you detect "design"?

F1fan

Veteran Member
I don't really detect design, I just believe that the natural world was designed, it is a matter of faith.
Which is why your beliefs are dubious. Science follows facts and data, and avoids the unnecessary assumptions your faith makes.
Do you say that nature is not designed through the same method, faith,
No, it's the scientific method. And you have been on this forum long enough to know this.
or have you got another method of showing that the natural world was not designed?
Another tricky question that assums design is an issue. What science recognizes is order: what exists is explained as how energy/matter behaves according to the natural laws. Nothing can be said to be a result of unnatural laws, which is what theists dislike. Theists are desperate to find anything that behaves outside of natural laws.
 
Last edited:

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
For the 5 external senses sight is one of them. But you can't describe the universe is physical using the 5 senses.

But this doesn't really explain how your two examples are different, and I'm not sure I agree

You can't use all 5 senses to describe how a cat is black, either. You can absolutely use all 5, senses for your surroundings otherwise they would be vestigial organs with no use. The only thing preventing us from seeing or touching things in our universe is distance and technological limitations. Since everything in our galaxy is physical, there's really no reason to assume why everything outside our galaxy wouldn't be as well

You can try, but you will find that you are in effect thinking that the universe is physical.

Oh, is this a brain in a vat kind of thing? Eh... I don't find that all too compelling
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Which is why your beliefs are dubious. Science follows facts and data, and avoids the unnecessary assumptions your faith makes.

No, it's the scientific metheod. And you have been on this forum long enough to know this.

Another tricky question that assums design is an issue. What science recognizes is order: what exists is a matter of how energy/matter behaves according to the natural laws. Nothing can be said to be a result of unnatural laws, which is what theists dislike. Theists are desperate to find anything that behaves outside of natural laws.

No, science as you use it is metaphysical naturalism as far as I can tell. I do it as methodological naturalism.
You know that the uinverse is natural. I acts as if it is and learn from that. Then I use other versions than your cultural version of science, because I have learn that there is sicence, natural science, soical science and human science. That is a different cultural version.
So you believe in one version of knowledge. I believe in another. And yet, we are both in the apparent everyday world.

So now you only have to prove that I am not really communicating with you about different subjective understandings of what knowledge is.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
But this doesn't really explain how your two examples are different, and I'm not sure I agree

You can't use all 5 senses to describe how a cat is black, either. You can absolutely use all 5, senses for your surroundings otherwise they would be vestigial organs with no use. The only thing preventing us from seeing or touching things in our universe is distance and technological limitations. Since everything in our galaxy is physical, there's really no reason to assume why everything outside our galaxy wouldn't be as well
...

Yeah, but the universe is not just things. It is for you that you think it is only things, but that you think that is not a thing, yet it is a part of the universe.
To your thinking is not physical as it has an element of being mental as relating to the mind. But what you experince as mental is not based on the 5 senses.
You have to learn to analyze your claim and figure out when it is not physical, but rather in your mind as thinking and/or feeling.
So is "... I'm not sure I agree" physical or mental? Is it a thing? Or something else? Does it happen in the universe?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...


Oh, is this a brain in a vat kind of thing? Eh... I don't find that all too compelling

No, not really. It is a non-physical metaphysics and ontology for what the universe is.
As for the bold one. I don't think the universe as such care about you being a Boltzmann Brain or not: The same for me.

So let us keep it to that we assume that the universe as such is epistemology fair and real in some sense, but that is not the same as it being physical.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
No, science as you use it is metaphysical naturalism as far as I can tell.
I claim no such thing.
I do it as methodological naturalism.
You know that the uinverse is natural.
What about you, do you known this, too? Is any non-natural phenomenon observed?
I acts as if it is and learn from that. Then I use other versions than your cultural version of science,
What is my cultural version, and how does it differ from whatever you are contrasting it with?
because I have learn that there is sicence, natural science, soical science and human science. That is a different cultural version.
No, these are just categories of investigation. Science is global, with global standards.

If you want to separate a cultural category you will find that in metaphysics and creationism.
So you believe in one version of knowledge. I believe in another. And yet, we are both in the apparent everyday world.
I accept the global standard of the scientific method. What you believe is colored by various philosophical ideas that seem more a hinderance than advantage.
So now you only have to prove that I am not really communicating with you about different subjective understandings of what knowledge is.
I have to? Who says? Your confusion isn't my problem.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

If you want to separate a cultural category you will find that in metaphysics and creationism.

I accept the global standard of the scientific method. What you believe is colored by various philosophical ideas that seem more a hinderance than advantage.

...

Well, I don't have a Danish non-philosophical and non-relgious book about different understandings of science. I am so confused that I haven't even written this as you are the global stabdard because you say so. You are so speical with your non-subjective acceptance as what is local in time and culture. In fact you are so global that you don't have a culture.

Something is not global just because you say so.
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Yeah, but the universe is not just things. It is for you that you think it is only things,

"Things" are categories we have made for understanding concepts, right?

but that you think that is not a thing, yet it is a part of the universe.

"Thinking" is something my brain does, and my brain exists in the universe. That seems to make it physical to me

To your thinking is not physical as it has an element of being mental as relating to the mind. But what you experince as mental is not based on the 5 senses.

The contents of my thoughts are absolutely based on my 5 senses. Can you imagine a life without one of those senses? Imagine a life without any of them. I'm not sure you'd be able to form much of an opinion on anything if none of your senses worked and you couldn't experience any aspect of the world

Without stimuli of some kind, a brain in a vat is literally just a blank slate with nothing going on. The only thing I can imagine in a state like that is just aimless dissociation - a vegetative state

You have to learn to analyze your claim and figure out when it is not physical, but rather in your mind as thinking and/or feeling.
So is "... I'm not sure I agree" physical or mental? Is it a thing? Or something else? Does it happen in the universe?

It's a process of my brain as far as I can tell. Everything that "thinks" does this to varying degrees, and it does this because there's an evolutionary advantage to do so. Same with every other biological advantage
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
That's preaching. Not evidence to your claim.

Cheers.
So... someone who has literally just told you they don't care what others believe is "preaching" at you.

I can show evidence. Can you?

Yes, but I won't. If you didn't already understand what I was driving at in my earlier responses to this thread, there's nothing for it. And I really don't care what you (or others) do or don't believe anyway beyond, say, appreciation of cultural diversity and different ways of seeing and knowing.

Really? That's what you want to go with? That I'm "preaching" at you? When I'm not the one telling you what you should and shouldn't do and believe? Really?!

You're weird and make no sense whatsoever, sir.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
"Things" are categories we have made for understanding concepts, right?



"Thinking" is something my brain does, and my brain exists in the universe. That seems to make it physical to me



The contents of my thoughts are absolutely based on my 5 senses. Can you imagine a life without one of those senses? Imagine a life without any of them. I'm not sure you'd be able to form much of an opinion on anything if none of your senses worked and you couldn't experience any aspect of the world

Without stimuli of some kind, a brain in a vat is literally just a blank slate with nothing going on. The only thing I can imagine in a state like that is just aimless dissociation - a vegetative state



It's a process of my brain as far as I can tell. Everything that "thinks" does this to varying degrees, and it does this because there's an evolutionary advantage to do so. Same with every other biological advantage

It si not that we have external experinces. It is if all experinces are reducible to expernal experinces. Right now we are debating physical reductionism, but that here is not proof of that.
"Thinking" is something my brain does, and my brain exists in the universe. That seems to make it physical to me
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
It si not that we have external experinces. It is if all experinces are reducible to expernal experinces

If there are no experiences to be informed through our senses of external phenomenon, then what kind of internal experiences can we have? All internal thoughts seem to be informed by our perceptions of external phenomenon exclusively - without perceptions of external phenomenon to compare things to, there can be no thoughts on anything

Right now we are debating physical reductionism, but that here is not proof of that.

I don't think I've presented any "proof" for anything. What I've supplied is reasoning for my thoughts. Is my reasoning bad? If so, I'd love to hear what I'm missing
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Can I ask how you've come to the conclusion that there is a realm of reality we know almost nothing of and that this is where "life" and "consciousness" are expressed from?
"Dark energy" and "dark matter" and the fact that we have no idea what they are or how they relate to the universe as we know it. The fact that cosmologists estimate that we know only about 7% of what there is to be known about the universe. A percentage so small that it could be overwhelmed by the degree of error it inhabits. The fact that there are numerous unexplained examples of cognitive information being transferred between life forms via a medium that we have never been able to detect. By the fact that the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.
As far as consciousness is concerned, it seems likely to me to be a product of evolution as I've said previously. As for life? Abiogenesis seems to be a likely candidate. The thing both of these have in common is that they are subject to the natural pressures that give a framework for these things to work around
The functional mechanisms are just functional mechanisms. They do not tell us why they are functional when none other is. They do not tell us what is driving existence to fulfill those functional possibilities.
The laws of natural and competition with other organisms, seems to me
Why are there any "laws" at all? Such parameters of possibility "design" their results when enacted. And this implies some sort of intelligence and purpose. Yet we know nothing of these.
There seems to be a point in the evolutionary tree where having the capability to make complex decisions improves the chances for certain organisms to compete and survive better - especially against other organisms that are able to make complex decisions
There is no evolutionary explanation for the exponential increase in imagination and reasoning within the human brain as compared to all other life forms on this planet.
I don't know if "set to be fulfilled" would be the terminology I'd use. As far as I'm aware, these building blocks of life seem to be drawn together and assemble when the conditions are right. If this turns out to be true, it seems to me that life becomes less of a chance and more of an inevitability assuming the conditions are right
But for those conditions to be right, the possibility of their "rightness" had to be there all along. If we combine some number of objects in just the right way, we get a bicycle. The bicycle did not exist until we combined the right set of objects in the right way, but the possibility of them being combined as such was always there. Even when we were completely oblivious to it.

The possibility of life has always been, even from before the universe exploded into being, ... waiting and wanting to be fulfilled. Life happened because it could. Evolution was just the mechanism that gave it it's physical form. Consciousness was always a possibility waiting to be fulfilled as well. And so it was. The brain is just a mechanism enabling it to happen within the physical realm.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
It si not that we have external experinces. It is if all experinces are reducible to expernal experinces. Right now we are debating physical reductionism, but that here is not proof of that.
"Thinking" is something my brain does, and my brain exists in the universe. That seems to make it physical to me
I don't think anyone here is claiming proof only that it is rational in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
The possibility of life has always been, even from before the universe exploded into being, ... waiting and wanting to be fulfilled. Life happened because it could. Evolution was just the mechanism that gave it it's physical form. Consciousness was always a possibility waiting to be fulfilled as well. And so it was. The brain is just a mechanism enabling it to happen within the physical realm.
Except for the bolded example of unevidenced religious teleology which negates the rationality of your arguments.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
If there are no experiences to be informed through our senses of external phenomenon, then what kind of internal experiences can we have? All internal thoughts seem to be informed by our perceptions of external phenomenon exclusively - without perceptions of external phenomenon to compare things to, there can be no thoughts on anything



I don't think I've presented any "proof" for anything. What I've supplied is reasoning for my thoughts. Is my reasoning bad? If so, I'd love to hear what I'm missing

Well, there are 2 models of empericism in play here.
All experinces can be reduced down to external one.
Not all experinces are external ones.

The problem is in part the word "no". In your model "no" comes from in the end the external experiences.
So please explain that in practice and not just claim it.

Here is how I understand it. E.g. not all words have external referents. I.e. "no" has no external referent, because it is a result of interal cognition.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Can you rephrase that?
Not much for philosophy, but I operate as a methodological naturalist not because I believe it to eliminate other possibilities but because I have seen no evidence to suggest the utility of any other position.

I can imagine lots of things, that doesn't necessarily make them useful.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Not much for philosophy, but I operate as a methodological naturalist not because I believe it to eliminate other possibilities but because I have seen no evidence to suggest the utility of any other position.

I can imagine lots of things, that doesn't necessarily make them useful.

There can be given no evidence for any utility, as evidence is based on an objective methodlogy and utility is subjective.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
There can be given no evidence for any utility, as evidence is based on an objective methodlogy and utility is subjective.
First thanks, it is now bookmarked next to understanding evolution. Next time I visit Berkeley I will have to visit.
I didn't mean utility as a scientific term, Only that I find little use for contemplating unevidenced philosophical positions.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
First thanks, it is now bookmarked next to understanding evolution. Next time I visit Berkeley I will have to visit.
I didn't mean utility as a scientific term, Only that I find little use for contemplating unevidenced philosophical positions.

Yeah, but that is opinion, belief and so on. And I accept that you do that and admit it is not science. :)
 
Top