How do you detect "design"?

[McBell]

Not being able to find a designer does not mean that science says or has shown that there is no designer.

Correct.
Science has no stance either way concerning deities.
Why?
Because there is no evidence for any.

You speak as if you actually think that science tells us that there is no designer.

Your assumptions are yours.

 

[Eli G]

...You are the victim of a metaphor. ...

The existence of laws in the Universe is not a metaphor in the same way that none of the universal constants are.

If human beings had not been provided with those laws and constants, none of their observations, studies, predictions, etc. would be possible or make sense.

The Bible says that God created man in his image and placed the rest of the earth's creation in his hands, to observe them, study them, use them, control them, dominate them, and discover the secrets that were placed in those creations.

Almost all human technologies, no matter how advanced, are copies of realities that already exist in God's creation.

 

[Pogo]

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

The usuall

 

[Pogo]

The existence of laws in the Universe is not a metaphor in the same way that none of the universal constants are.

If human beings had not been provided with those laws and constants, none of their observations, studies, predictions, etc. would be possible or make sense.

The Bible says that God created man in his image and placed the rest of the earth's creation in his hands, to observe them, study them, use them, control them, dominate them, and discover the secrets that were placed in those creations.

Almost all human technologies, no matter how advanced, are copies of realities that already exist in God's creation.

Beyond the weak anthropic principle (we wouldn't be here if the constants were different) the rest is just post hoc rationalization.

And the smiley says you know you are wrong.

 

[McBell]

Weapons grade projection. LOL

From what I have seen, they spend more time talking about their ignore list than anything else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you agree that science has not shown and does not say that there are no gods.

Yes. And I also explained how as a statement that is very meaningless. But you seem to be ignoring that part.

So if you cannot show how life and the universe came to be without a creator and designer, why would anyone care about your claims?

See, this is why should take in the explanations given instead of simply focusing on the pixel.
I explained to you how it is meaningless to make such negative statements.

Science isn't looking to find out what things are NOT involved.
No person looking for a meaningful explanation about anything is looking to find out what things are NOT involved.

The rational and meaningful approach is to look for what IS involved.

So when it comes to origins of life for example, scientists think chemistry is involved. So they look for explanations involving chemistry.
When it comes to the origins of the universe, scientists think physics is involved. So they look for explanations involving physics.


We already established that science doesn't concern itself with negative statements like "no pixies are involved".
So why are you asking about them?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, you are both doing one version of empericism for which there are 2 in play.
"... This article characterizes empiricists more broadly as those thinkers who accept Locke’s Axiom that there is no idea in the mind that cannot be traced back to some particular experience. ..."

British Empiricism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

But the question is if all experince is external.
E.g. is morality external or is the experince of good and bad internal?

Hence the connection to this as I already posted it:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I.e. if all experince was external, then science could do that in the link, that it can't, because it is not external experince.
It doesn't meet these version of objective or external:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

To be honest, it's kind of sad when someone has to explain to another what the word objective means, unless of course, they don't understand English too well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are also "agnostics" who believe they do not know.

Different subjects and not mutually exclusive.
Atheism pertains to beliefs
Agnosticism pertains to what can be known.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Your second guessing what atheists wil answer your question.

No.

There is no atheist who will answer the question "do you believe a god exists" with "yes".
They wouldn't be an atheist if they did. By definition.

The arguments for the subjective existence or non-existence of Gods has no parallel in court room analogies, which ar ased on evidence and law.

The analogy doesn't pertain to evidence and law.

It pertains to the different questions.
"do you believe x is guilty" vs "do you believe x is innocent".
Analogous to
"do you believe god exists" vs "do you believe god does not exist".

These are not the same questions

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can understand that, but it is not science.

There is no need for your "but" since nobody said otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I suppose anything can be in the same category as anything else if you are setting the criteria for the category.

???

There have to be criteria for categories. Otherwise there wouldn't be any categories.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To be honest, it's kind of sad when someone has to explain to another what the word objective means, unless of course, they don't understand English too well.

@TagliatelliMonster
It was a derail about a not realted part of science.
It wasn't relevant to evolution as such. But you can properly explain that was the case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I imagine it would have been to have it replace the type of evolution that is taught in science classes, evolution without a designer.

This is a lie. A creationist lie.
Evolution is no more taught as "without a designer" as gravity is taught as "without graviton pixies".

We've been over this. I explained how it's a null statement. We've went over how it's meaningless.
Why the need to keep coming back to this nonsense?

And if science in the classroom teaches "no designer" then that is not science.

As much as science class teaches the "no graviton pixies" version of gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

@TagliatelliMonster
It was a derail about a not realted part of science.
It wasn't relevant to evolution as such. But you can properly explain that was the case.

Yes, I am glad you understood that it wasn't targeted at you, but the idea that someone here would need a concise explanation of what the word objective means has -- problems. If they expect to argue the case in English, that is. of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ihave promised @TagliatelliMonster not to derail the thread with that, so I won't answer here.

Glad you're sticking to your promise -- since I tend to answer based on replies and sometimes not the topic itself, I commend you for that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I accept your category boundaries then true. But I don't.

What boundaries?

Supernatural / magical, no evidence, untestable.

What's wrong with that set of criteria?

The way I don't believe there were undetectable pixies involved is by faith.

Really?
So the forensic scientist who investigates a murder and doesn't even consider an undetectable pixie as being the murderer, is using "faith" by not considering such pixies?

Are you being serious? Or are you rather entering the world of absurdities to try and rationalize your faith based positions?

I don't expect that science should be able to find evidence for a supernatural being. Lack of evidence is not evidence that no supernatural beings exist.

Yes, we have established that already.
Lack of evidence isn't evidence that magical beings like gods and undetectable pixies don't exist.
This is meaningless. You seem to be implying that this somehow makes your case FOR such magical beings more rational or plausible.

It doesn't.

But there is other sorts of evidence is human history and in the experiences of many people.
In that it is a bit like bigfoot and UFOs, many believe. But it is a more all encompassing belief in the lives of people.

Indeed. It is like bigfoot and UFO's and alien abduction and crystal healings and voodoo and astrology and tarrot readings and....
Yes, good examples.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yes, again - we've established that already.
Evolution doesn't include a designer and gravity doesn't include graviton pixies.

Yes. What's the problem?

 

[Pogo]

To be honest, it's kind of sad when someone has to explain to another what the word objective means, unless of course, they don't understand English too well.

Considering your lack of objectivity, it is unfortunately necessary for the definition to be discussed.

 

[Pogo]

As far as I know, no self-respecting teacher or scientist uses a stupid avatar and nick with a cynical and malevolent message at first glance. The blatant intentions are obvious to the naked eye, the stupid ones are the only ones who believe that there is something serious behind this whole spectacle.

The managers of this site should demand respect for those who participate here with some really good motivation, instead of encouraging idiots to continue blatantly behaving in such a cynical and toxic manner.

In the end they are going to make the few of us who come to share some knowledge and reasonable ideas stop coming. The Internet is a huge place and there are many forums that people can visit to share with others. I've already shown you that I don't need this place at all, and I'm only coming to help if someone like me stops by. But when I only see trash lying around, I lose my desire...

More projection and a blind reference to CYA your accusation.
Any time you actually want to present some defensible evidence, we will discuss.
I think you do need this place, none of your echo chambers give you any satisfaction in your desire for attention.
Sadly some settle for any attention at all rather than modifying behaviour to receive positive attention.
There is a 3 year old who cries and then laughs next door to me when ever he doesn't get his way.

 

[Pogo]

What this has shown me is that the people here who promote evolution in its full concept as if it's true do not know what they're talking about.

Well even if we are wrong, we know that you are wronger!

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the truth that is transparent. That's why they only launch personal attacks and disqualifications.

I was reading a certain dialogue where a participant asks how to know if he has to support someone for telling the truth, and the answer he received is that if the person does not belong to his group, nothing he says is acceptable. It is blatant prejudice; Either you accept their point of view or they are going to mistreat you in every possible way.

That's the plan behind the plan: psychological warfare. Take care of yourself and be strong. Trust in God, because the wicked will disappear in a short time, as the Scripture says:

Psal. 37:7 Keep silent before Jehovah
And wait expectantly for him.
Do not be upset by the man
Who succeeds in carrying out his schemes.
8 Let go of anger and abandon rage;
Do not become upset and turn to doing evil.
9 For evil men will be done away with,
But those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth
10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;
You will look at where they were,
And they will not be there.
11 But the meek will possess the earth,
And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
12 The wicked man plots against the righteous;
He grinds his teeth at him.
13 But Jehovah will laugh at him,
For He knows that his day will come.
14 The wicked draw their swords and bend their bows
To bring down the oppressed and the poor,
To slaughter those whose way is upright.
15 But their sword will pierce their own heart;
Their bows will be broken.
16 Better is the little of the righteous one
Than the abundance of many wicked ones.
17 For the arms of the wicked will be broken,
But Jehovah will support the righteous.

PS: When I go around the world talking to others about the promises of God, I focus on those who have a good attitude, because they are honest toward the truth.

Yes, indeed. Yes, it's like the knowledge is medicine that works!! And, of course, as Jesus said, people would be eating and drinking and then the end would come. Many would pay no heed to the warning signs. It makes sense to me, and I believe it:
(Berean Standard Bible) Matthew 24: Temple Destruction and Other Signs
1As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings.
2“Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”
4Jesus answered, “See to it that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. These things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
Witnessing to All Nations

Matthew 24 BSB