• 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"?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So then what do you think? In your opinion, did the universe come from Quantum Nothingness? And if so, how so, or maybe it is that scientists haven't figured it out yet.
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.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Wasn’t SETI a scientific endeavor?

They were searching for evidence of intelligence. How? What were these scientists looking for?
(It’s really not that difficult.)
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
…. all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate[d] by science to be as a result of natural processes.
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.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I do not believe the existence of non-existence of God can be known

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

1716361700535.png


Your response is not clear, read my post again.

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.

Apparently are you agree with me?
I don't know anymore. You keep arguing in vague terms.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
When a programmer thinks of an algorithm, he begins to carry out a long and tedious process of creating the program to use that algorithm. I myself have created some mathematical programs that have been very useful for other programs and algorithms... so although I am not an expert, I more or less have the idea of how this works.

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... although we know that some failures have occurred in the process due to the freedom of movement that was given to certain parts of the program, I am sure that everything will be rectified and will become so perfect that no previous failure will ever be remembered.
As a professional software engineer myself, who IS an expert at programming, I'm calling bs.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
In nature there are no random processes because it was created with a purpose, that is, each thing has its specific functions and the necessary information so that it "knows" how to do it.

However, there is a certain freedom of movement that was included in the "programming" of the universe. For example, the freedom of action that intelligent beings have.

On the other hand, in the appearance of an ordered cosmos without the intervention of a Supreme Being, there is no explanation for the existence of natural laws or predetermined processes, or natural constants,... For atheists the appearance of life and ordered processes in the universe, it is simply a miracle.

PS: I don't need a speech from an evolutionist to know how reality works. :cool:
You don't seem to understand how the laws of nature are descriptive of how things work, not prescriptive on how they "should" work.

You are engaging in fallacious teleological thinking.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
sorry I do not understand your question

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 then 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.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I honestly did my best effort and you still fail to understand so ether

1 you are to dumb to understand

2 I am too band in expalinign stuff

3 (most likely) you are just pretending not to understand

In any case I am not interested in wasting time with you………………


I won’t even read it…………..if your fail to understand the first sentence…………you have no opportunity to understand and correctly address the rest.
Let's just cut this nonsense argument short.


QR codes: are they designed / manufactured object or are they natural objects, regardless of how they were generated by whom, when or why?

A yes or no will suffice.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
IMO, cancer is a result of human activity without real knowledge and control.



Animals were affected by cancers long before humans existed.


The Creator is not responsible for the harm that humans cause to themselves.

Humans didn't cause any cancers in ancient animals since humans didn't even exist yet.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And I wonder if, in addition to programming atheist bots, there were others programmed to defend the existence of a Creator, what would happen? Would they kill each other? :eek:
Hey.... just out of curiosity..... between all this trolling and derailing....


Do you also have an opinion on the OP topic? Namely, what method do you use to distinguish design from non-design?




I'm guessing this post is somewhat optimistic, but one never knows, right?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Humans and monkeys are still here on the earth. Humans can procreate with each other, monkeys can do the same. But -- yes -- humans cannot breed with monkeys.
Another "so what" argument


Anyhow.... instead of this derailing tangent... let's get back to topic.

How do you detect design and distinguish it from non-design?
What's your methodology and how does it differ from the one presented in the OP?


Optimistic post, I know
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Wasn’t SETI a scientific endeavor?

They were searching for evidence of intelligence. How? What were these scientists looking for?
(It’s really not that difficult.)
They were looking for things based on what we humans do.
Just like I explained in the OP.

So how would you answer the question? The implication in your post is that it's not "hard" to answer, so surely you could explain?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.
"never", followed by an example of the opposite. :shrug:


Anyhow, willful ignorance is not an argument.

For example, Behe called the flagellum to be "irreducibly complex". A quick google will yield you a wide range of explanations of how the flagellum can evolve step by step. Better yet: use duck duck go instead of google. It will give you more accurate results since google will give you search results based on your "preferences" taken from your browsing history. In your case, chances are huge you will be served with mostly creationist propaganda.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Let's just cut this nonsense argument short.


QR codes: are they designed / manufactured object or are they natural objects, regardless of how they were generated by whom, when or why?

A yes or no will suffice.
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?
 

TagliatelliMonster

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


Great, so we can finally move on.


Follow up question: did you require your SC "method" to conclude that yes?
If so, explain how.
If not, why not and what alternative method did you use to conclude that yes?


Also, still waiting on an actual example of my question X pages ago: give me an example of using SC to conclude design in a thing that wasn't already known to be designed.


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

The resulting QR code either way is a designed object. As you just agreed with above..............................

As in the example I gave earlier: if you spill paint on a rock, the paint on the rock remains a manufactured thing. The rock with paint on it would not be of natural occurrence. It matters not if the paint was put there "by design" with purpose or it was just spilled at random.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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?
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 the design of existence.
 
Last edited:
Top