How do you detect "design"?

[shunyadragon]

Well, we don't agree if faith is only relevant to religion in the standard sense in these debates, but with that I will leave for now.

Faith is the basis of subjective beliefs of religion, and other beliefs that lack objective verifiable evidence.

It is a given that you are an Ontological Idealist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, that is one example or even more, but from there doesn't follow that it is universal.

Needs clarification, because science does not claim the universal beyond what can be presently verified with Methodological Naturalism

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Faith is the basis of subjective beliefs of religion, and other beliefs that lack objective verifiable evidence.

It is a given that you are an Ontological Idealist.

Thesaurus results for FAITH

Synonyms for FAITH: religion, devotion, profession, piety, adoration, worship, reverence, religiousness; Antonyms of FAITH: atheism, doubt, unbelief, godlessness, disbelief, unfaith, agnosticism, apostasy

www.merriam-webster.com

I use #5
as in belief
mental conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon

In effect the epistemologcally belief is the universe is fair, orderly and knowable.
That is my faith. I hold none on metaphysics and ontology.

 

[F1fan]

I don't need to not be able to imagine how nature could have generated those things if science tells me how nature could have done it without supervision or intertion. I still have faith that there is a designer however.

Who told you a designer is something at all? Where did you hear about that idea?

But what science can do is offer educated opinions

You are minimizing what science can do. Are you aware of your bias at work here since science threatens your religious beliefs? We see it, don't you see yourself doing it?

Science follows facts and data to form conclusions that account for ALL of the data. Nothing suggests what creationism wants.

about how nature might have done stuff but it cannot conclude that there was no supervision or intention,,,,,,,,,, that is part of the conclusion that science cannot add.

There is no reason to assume supervision, or design, or creators, or gods. There are no facts that suggest these are real. Science has to follow facts, period. The absense of a supernatural means it is irrelevant. This is a problem for believers, not science. Trying to make this issue a problem for science, or that science is somehow deficient, is a major flaw in your position. You need to show the world that a supernatural supervisor/designed exists. Since you can't, we throw it out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Needs clarification, because science does not claim the universal beyond what can be presently verified with Methodological Naturalism

Go back and read the thread of replies and get back if you need to.

 

[shunyadragon]

In the eyes of the ID people, the science in the classroom does not include a designer, and I am sure you agree.

Science in the classroom is science and not religion. It does not address whether a designer exists or not,

 

[shunyadragon]

Thesaurus results for FAITH

Synonyms for FAITH: religion, devotion, profession, piety, adoration, worship, reverence, religiousness; Antonyms of FAITH: atheism, doubt, unbelief, godlessness, disbelief, unfaith, agnosticism, apostasy

www.merriam-webster.com

I use #5
as in belief
mental conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon

In effect the epistemologcally belief is the universe is fair, orderly and knowable.
That is my faith. I hold none on metaphysics and ontology.

You are being selective beyond the proper definitions of faith as is the topic of this dialogue.

What you are referring to is a general generic use of faith in everyday use and not in terms of the objective versus subjective use of faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Go back and read the thread of replies and get back if you need to.

I have read the thread, no problem. Again . . .

Needs clarification, because science does not claim the universal beyond what can be presently verified with Methodological Naturalism

 

[shunyadragon]

Believing all the conclusions of science sounds like "faith" to me. I think that some of what is called science is not real science. It is not repeatable or falsifiable.

No. Examples please based on science, and not on the subjective belief based on faith..

 

[Audie]

Who told you a designer is something at all? Where did you hear about that idea?

You are minimizing what science can do. Are you aware of your bias at work here since science threatens your religious beliefs? We see it, don't you see yourself doing it?

Science follows facts and data to form conclusions that account for ALL of the data. Nothing suggests what creationism wants.

There is no reason to assume supervision, or design, or creators, or gods. There are no facts that suggest these are real. Science has to follow facts, period. The absense of a supernatural means it is irrelevant. This is a problem for believers, not science. Trying to make this issue a problem for science, or that science is somehow deficient, is a major flaw in your position. You need to show the world that a supernatural supervisor/designed exists. Since you can't, we throw it out.

Repeat: NO facts support what creationists want.

Of our "faithful" here we ask: "Isn't that concerning?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are being selective beyond the proper definitions of faith as is the topic of this dialogue.

What you are referring to is a general generic use of faith in everyday use and not in terms of the objective versus subjective use of faith.

Yeah, I know. Just as with religion your definition is correct or what ever. And this topic is so limited that it is not connected to the rest of the forum or even the universe as such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have read the thread, no problem. Again . . .

Needs clarification, because science does not claim the universal beyond what can be presently verified with Methodological Naturalism

That is fine but assumptions based on faith are not useable in scientific reasoning hence it's agnosticism.
Science however is not all that there is to humanity we agree, but mixing faith with science is to the detriment of both.

That is where universal came from in the line of replies. Is it universal that mixing faith with science is to the detriment of both?

Stay on target. I will leave for now.

 

[F1fan]

Repeat: NO facts support what creationists want.

Of our "faithful" here we ask: "Isn't that concerning?"

It isn't, because the basis of their religious faith is that they assume that their God/creator exists as an absolute. They may not admit this, or even be aware that this is what they are thinking, but their thinking (which often seems to be like some mindless AI generated nonsense) all stems from their religious programming, and they are unwilling, or unable, to set this aside. Their thinking is automatically biased to justify the assumption of a creator. Critical thinkers expose these flaws, but the creationists try to knit back their claims with more claims. That's why we see them assert "science can't prove there is no designer".

 

[Audie]

It isn't, because the basis of their religious faith is that they assume that their God/creator exists as an absolute. They may not admit this, or even be aware that this is what they are thinking, but their thinking (which often seems to be like some mindless AI generated nonsense) all stems from their religious programming, and they are unwilling, or unable, to set this aside. Their thinking is automatically biased to justify the assumption of a creator. Critical thinkers expose these flaws, but the creationists try to knit back their claims with more claims. That's why we see them assert "science can't prove there is no designer".

They'd have quite a different version.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is where universal came from in the line of replies. Is it universal that mixing faith with science is to the detriment of both?

Stay on target. I will leave for now.

I am right on target. It is you playing with words to justify your agenda, The definitions of faith in terms of religion and subjective believes versus the objective basis for science is clear and specific.

Mixing subjective religion and other beliefs based on faith with science is most definitely a problem considering the purpose and intent Methodological Naturalism

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, I know. Just as with religion your definition is correct or what ever. And this topic is so limited that it is not connected to the rest of the forum or even the universe as such.

You know? That is questionable Failure to respond. Properly defining terms relevant to the thread topic does not limit the discussion in the thread

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is logical to deduce that if something is sufficiently complex it is because it has been designed.

I am not going to get into the game of what is fallacy and what is not, because it is not the issue under consideration.

Obviously, if someone considers a logical deduction fallacious, then they are not thinking correctly.

How complex is the god you believe in and worship?

 

[shunyadragon]

Wasn't I clear in my post?

No rather foggy at least.

What exactly didn't you understand on my comment? Or specifically what do you disagree with?
So how do you think it should be instead of the way I put it?

Vague unclear obtuse use of "perceive" without coherent explanation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I believe for faith reasons and think that those who want to push faith aside in their lives are missing an important part of their humanity.
Pushing aside "reason" is also not sensible.

And i think that you've thoroughly demonstrated that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I imagine it would have been to have it replace the type of evolution that is taught in science classes, evolution without a designer. And if science in the classroom teaches "no designer" then that is not science.

What explanatory power is offered by inserting an unverifiable, non-demonstrable god into the equation?