How do you detect "design"?

[Brian2]

False. There is no reason to assume design. Your comment shows how you don't understand that science follows facts, and does NOT make any assumption, like those you religious folks do.

You are assuming that the existence of gods is a false belief and that the non use of gods in science shows that they do not exist.

Can you prove any gods exist? Can you prove than anyone who claims to have interacted with a god actually did? If you can't, then your claim here is false.

You should have written: people have claimed to interact with God for thousands of years.

I believe people have interacted with God for thousands of years.

False, the social science study the pychology of religion, the sociology of religion, the psychology of belief, and in general how brains process religious thoughts and what this tells us about how the human brain evolved to be religious.

Can you prove that social science has shown that? If you can't, then your claim here is false. You should have written that you believe that social science shows that the human brain evolved to be religious.

 

[Brian2]

Hmm, it sounds like, if you're the one making the claim that it IS designed, it's on you to demonstrate that and not on others to show that it's not.
You know, like how the burden of proof works.

I'm just pointing out that for those who say it is designed and for those who say it is not designed, we are in the same boat. You cannot demonstrate your position and I cannot demonstrate mine.

You're projecting.

Maybe. Science does not work in the simplistic way that I stated but skeptics work in that way when they say that they propose (without proof) that there is no designer, and if those who say there is a designer cannot prove it then there is no designer.

 

[Brian2]

It is NOT assumed that intelligent design was not involved, and yes, we cannot know that the universe wasn't intelligently designed. That seems to matter more to you than to critical thinkers, who are content to treat the universe as undesigned until there is a good reason to think otherwise.

If you take the scientific method as your way to establish the truth of anything, including those things not physical in nature, then that is a criticism of critical thinkers. Not of critical thinking in itself but for those who see it as the be all and end all of determining the truth of something.

I don't believe that. There is no good evidence that any god exists or has ever interacted with man.

We disagree on that. I see fulfilled prophecy as good evidence but if any criticism of that fulfilment is enough to make it false prophecy then that is just your belief in critical thinking being used against other beliefs.

Use of the word spiritual doesn't justify calling imagined things real. Likewise with the word supernatural. Referring to it doesn't make it a thing. Both are linguistic sleights-of-hand used to explain why nobody can find what others have imagined and have claimed exist somewhere but don't actually exist.

OK, but also physical science not being able to find and/or study the supernatural does not justify saying that the supernatural does not exist or that others have just claimed they have experienced the supernatural. That of course is your belief in critical thinking stepping in and wanting proof.

Yes, and as you read, it's something I and many others have labored to avoid. As I said, "In my opinion, belief by faith is a logical error." That academic tradition I referred to seeks to identify which ideas are correct and the methods to elucidate them. That's a summum bonum in liberal studies. The critical thinker strives to accumulate as many correct ideas as possible while avoiding belief in wrong and not-even-wrong ideas, so naturally, he attempts to avoid making logical errors. Leaps of faith produce non sequiturs.

"belief by faith" is what you have with your critical thinking, and say this when you say "In my opinion, belief by faith is a logical error".
In academia it no doubt is a logical error and to be avoided and no doubt academia does that as best it can, but academia seems to be a small part of reality. Academia seems to be a maize where people go and can easily get lost and think that the conclusions of academia, using critical thinking, are necessarily true. This seems like a trap in a faith or a cult and not freedom from errors. Escaping from it would be as hard as it has been for you to escape your former beliefs.

So how do we identify correct ideas and distinguish them from incorrect ones? If an idea is the sound conclusion of an argument, it can generally be demonstrated to successfully predict outcomes. If it does that, it can be called correct.

Furthermore, a correct idea is falsifiable but is never falsified. That's why we call the theory of evolution correct beyond reasonable doubt. It's a sound conclusion derived from interpreting data, it makes accurate predictions, and it hasn't been falsified.

And that's why we have debate (dialectic). Two or more critical thinkers attempt to falsify one another's claims and arguments, the last plausible, unrebutted position being considered provisionally correct until and unless someone can come along and rebut/falsify it.

That's also a plank in that academic philosophy and culture, one which the creationists and others seem unaware. When somebody makes a sound argument that is not successfully rebutted, he's forfeited the debate. If he's part of that culture, he recognizes and acknowledges that fact, and is happy to report that he's been educated. If he's not, he considers the interaction a draw, unaware of those rules or how he's perceived for violating them.

Debate is like a game of ping-pong when two competent debaters are present, but when one isn't a critical thinker, the volley generally consists of a serve (initial claim), a return (rebuttal), and that's it (no acknowledgement of the rebuttal or counterargument to it). And since the returner has made the last plausible, unrebutted argument, his position has prevailed. That's also how it works in a courtroom. Attorneys offer mutually exclusive theories, each offering evidence and an interpretation of its significance in confirming guilt or innocence, each trying to refute the other until an argument remains which cannot be successfully rebutted, and then a verdict.

That's also how scientific peer review works. Along with pragmatism, or a demonstration that an idea works, it's the academic standard for deciding the truth and correctness of ideas.

Sometimes there are disagreement with do not get resolved. Neither side of the debate gives up on their position and neither side can show that they are correct, except to themselves and others who agree with them.

 

[Brian2]

Were you really born from a womb, or delivered by a stork? Is it really just 1 of the 2 possibilities?

We are talking about the universe.

What designer? If you want design and designers to be taken seriously show us one exists. We don't care about your religious tradition of belief, it's irrelevant. You need to learn that your religious tradition of belief in not evidence, and not relevant to explain how things are in reality. Sorry, hard truth.

If your reality is just the physical universe then maybe you are correct and my religion does not explain how things are (how they work) but my religion tells us who made it all and that it was made and designed. Sorry, hard truth.

False, science HAS for account for all facts and all data. No exceptions.

Get science right if you are going to post about science.

Your idea of science imo is in error. Hypothesese are not true until shown to be false,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, no matter how complex the form of the hypothesis is.
Science does not know where life and the universe come from.

Nor can science study Hobbits, or any other fictional characters. But it can study why humans believe that fictional characters exist.

Science cannot and does tell us that Gods do not exist.

Irrelevant. Even believers can't show is that their gods exist. That's why gods/creators/designers are irrelevant to science. With over 200 creator gods in human history none are taken seriously as causing anything. The gods that created the Hawaiian Islands are not considered to be behind the volcanic activity that actually caused them.

That's science for you but there are both believing and non believing scientists and so science does not show that gods do not exist.

 

[McBell]

but my religion tells us who made it all and that it was made and designed. Sorry, hard truth.

The only "hard truth" in that statement is that your religion makes claims of who made it and that it was made and designed.

Your idea of science imo is in error. Hypothesese are not true until shown to be false,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, no matter how complex the form of the hypothesis is.

How does showing a hypothesis false make it true?
I suspect a typo..?

Science does not know where life and the universe come from.

Neither does religion.
A bold empty claim is still a bold empty claim regardless of how confidently the bold empty claim is declared.

Science cannot and does tell us that Gods do not exist.

Is that the bar you have set?
That what you believe is true until it is shown to be wrong?
You do know the exact same argument works just effectively for any and all imaginary things, right?

That's science for you but there are both believing and non believing scientists and so science does not show that gods do not exist.

If the best you got for the existence of gods is "you can't prove they do not exist" you do not have much.

 

[Brian2]

You're the one making the assumption here. The assumption that it was designed. And you have no evidence to offer.
So why should anyone consider it?

As I have said, why should anyone consider the idea that there is no design and no designer when nobody has shown these thing. This is just stepping past what science can tell us and into the realm of that dirty word, belief.
If you don't like any evidence I might offer then that is a problem you have imo. I'm not here to keep offering evidence to convince you that a god exists.

Correction: People claim to have interacted with GodS for thousands of years. Do you think people have interacted with Thor? Allah? Apollo?

People claim to have interacted with God for thousands of years. There is only one true God.

What are "spiritual things?" Sounds like it's just stuff you want to believe, but can't show to be true.

Believing that spiritual things are not true is not what science teaches. That is a belief of skeptics.

Thanks for demonstrating yet again that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence for it. And that it is not a reliable pathway to truth because anything can be believed on faith.

Your not being able to see good evidence for God is not a reason to say that God does not exist or that faith cannot lead to the truth.
If I don't see your good evidence for "no gods" then that does not mean that Gods exist, it is just that I believe in one of them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or to put it another way,,,,,,,,,,,I lack a belief in your evidence for "no gods",,,,,,,,,,,,,, which evidence you seem not to have anyway.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you take the scientific method as your way to establish the truth of anything, including those things not physical in nature, then that is a criticism of critical thinkers.

Empiricism is the only known path to knowledge about reality. We are aware of nothing existing beyond physical reality, which is matter moving and energy transforming under the influence of forces in space and through time.

You pay attention to the possibility that there is more than physical reality. In fact, you've accepted it as fact that there is. The critically thinking empiricist can't use an idea until it is needed to explain some observation, so, he ignores such things. If there is nothing more, that will never happen.

I see fulfilled prophecy as good evidence

I don't. It's not even good evidence that the prophet was very good at predicting much less that the prophet was a god.

physical science not being able to find and/or study the supernatural does not justify saying that the supernatural does not exist

It justifies saying that the concept can be ignored until and unless such evidence arises. Empiricists aren't looking for what's not evident. They're looking to explain the evidence they have.

or that others have just claimed they have experienced the supernatural. People claim to have interacted with God for thousands of years.

Their extraordinary claims of experiencing gods or the supernatural aren't enough. They need to show that they are correct to be believed.

Science cannot and does tell us that Gods do not exist.

No, it doesn't. It also doesn't tell us that vampires don't exist. We don't need to disprove the existence of something to live as if it doesn't exist. You probably devote a lot of time and other resources to your religious beliefs. Imagine adding a belief in vampires to that. Now you'd need to keep garlic around and avoid going out at night. If you also believed in leprechauns, that might consume more of your resources hunting rainbows and pots of gold. My point is that we should disregard all of these things for which sufficient evidence to justify belief is lacking for as long as it is lacking. If and when that changes, THAT's when such ideas deserve attention.

why should anyone consider the idea that there is no design and no designer when nobody has shown these thing.

Same answer. We don't say that there is a designer until that idea is needed to explain something. We also don't say that there ISN'T a designer.

Your not being able to see good evidence for God is not a reason to say that God does not exist or that faith cannot lead to the truth.

Seeing insufficient evidence to believe is a good reason to not believe any idea. That's the basis of skepticism and empiricism.

Regarding faith leading to truth, faith is guessing, and there are far many more wrong guesses than correct ones. Even if you guess correctly, you can't know that until you do some kind of empirical investigation, in which case you now have knowledge ("truth"), but it didn't come from faith.

 

[F1fan]

We are talking about the universe.

You are avoiding my point. The universe has natural mechanisms, and there's no evidence of any supernatural, magic, designers, etc. Yet you keep assuming your religious lore is a safe thing to do. Your way of thinking is on par with children being delivered by storks.

If your reality is just the physical universe then maybe you are correct and my religion does not explain how things are (how they work) but my religion tells us who made it all and that it was made and designed. Sorry, hard truth.

We all live in a real universe, and we know what we know due to observations and science. No religions offer any contribution that is factual, including yours. That is the hard truth. Your claims can't be defended with any evidence, and we throw them out for that reason. Feel free to believe in religious lore, you just aren't going to get away with claiming they are true in open debate. Your religious beliefs are irelevant to explain anything. Notice you make no effort to show I'm wrong.

Your idea of science imo is in error.

I have better understanding of science than you do, so your opinion is meaningless. You continue to get science wrong, and you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance. Double whammy. Willful ignorance.

Hypothesese are not true until shown to be false

LOL, what kind of language is this?

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, no matter how complex the form of the hypothesis is.

A hypothesis is a set of statements that make a prediction about how that observation functions. It also proposes a test. It has to be based on facts and other theories.

Science does not know where life and the universe come from.

No one does. And it may have not come from anywhere, as has existed forever.

Whatever religions claim they are pure nonsense from inventive ancient people.

Science cannot and does tell us that Gods do not exist.

It can't tell us unicorns don't exist either. What's your point? Why can't you believers prove any gods exist? Why assume they do? Because that is what your culture indoctrined you to believe, like mindless robots who can't think for themselves?

Explain what evidence and reasoning led you to conclude that a God exists. And could you be mistaken?

That's science for you but there are both believing and non believing scientists and so science does not show that gods do not exist.

Where is fact that God does exist? You are always focused on the fallacy of others proving a negative, but fail to show us that a God does exist, or even how it is reasonable to believe. It's almost as if you are aware that you have nothing more than an assumption, not sound belief, and definately no knowledge of a God existing.

Scientists have to follow a set of ethics and the scientific method if they want to keep their jobs. So if they are religious they have set their religious belief aside when they work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are avoiding my point. The universe has natural mechanisms, and there's no evidence of any supernatural, magic, designers, etc. Yet you keep assuming your religious lore is a safe thing to do. Your way of thinking is on par with children being delivered by storks.

We all live in a real universe, ...

How do you observe real as real. I mean e.g. for a cat, I can observe its color. How do I observe real for the universe? Can you explain that using terms as per observation. I don't want how you think/feel. I want that you explain the observation.

 

[F1fan]

How do you observe real as real. I mean e.g. for a cat, I can observe its color. How do I observe real for the universe? Can you explain that using terms as per observation. I don't want how you think/feel. I want that you explain the observation.

If you're confused about reality how do you manage to pluck on your computer keyboard and post? Doesn't your own cognitive and physical processes tell you something real? You must acknowledge real long enough to get through typing a sentence.

 

[F1fan]

Science uses only the evidence it can handle scientifically. That should be remembered about science.

If you mean science has to rely only on facts, and not assumptions, yes. That's why science can't assume gods, or angels, or demons, or unicorns, or other imaginary characters in doing science. Only reality, and God doesn;t meet the burden. I notice you offer no evidence for any God existing. Just because mom and dad said there was a God doesn't make it suitable for understanding reality as described by science.

I trust science and scientists about many things, and question other things that I do not agree with.

Then you are biased about those things you reject, and reject it without any education or exprtise. You are only admitting to a flaw in your attitudes and beliefs. And that is due to toxic religious indoctrination. You are complicit against yourself with this toxic dogma that others told you was true.

With things I doubt it seems to be that it is not real science to the extent that it cannot be repeated or falsified.

But how would you know given your lack of knowldge about science? That is the dilemma of ignorance, you don;t know what you don't know. This is how many believers are manipulated and exploited by religious leaders. Ignorance is synonymous with gullible.

To you the beliefs are not credible but to me they are credible because I am using more evidence than science does and do not blindly follow science in everything it tells us.

False, you have no "evidence" that science doesn't use. You have assumptions that science CAN'T make. Science can't make unwarranted assumptions because they are not facts.

Many people believe what science tells them and think it must be true because "they are the experts".

Look at your contempt for science so you can justify your beliefs. This is part of the toxicity of religion, and you are infected.

It is sad that people get indoctrinated like this.

LOL, oh the irony. Science shows its work. It explains every step, how it uses facts, and accounts for all data. It rejects religious assumptions because they have no basis in reality.

But that's the human condition and we all get indoctrinated into something without knowing it probably.

False. Critical thinkers have learned how to slow down and mitigate any bias. Religious believers are examples of people who have adopted ideas that not only lack evidence, but also contrary to fact and science. Who is more likely fooled, those who accept a factual system to investigate the universe, or those who have adopted supernatural ideas that stem back to 2600 years?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you're confused about reality how do you manage to pluck on your computer keyboard and post? Doesn't your own cognitive and physical processes tell you something real? You must acknowledge real long enough to get through typing a sentence.

I have never observed real or been told be reality that something is real.
The only case of real I know of is like God. It is claimed to be out there but there is no evidence for it just like God.
That is it.
Now I don't believe in God, but I do believe that the universe is real, but that is a belief based on faith in the end.
If you can actually observe a real universe and not claim it based on how you think, then give the evidence.

 

[F1fan]

I have never observed real or been told be reality that something is real.

So the computer you are using to type your posts isn't real?

The only case of real I know of is like God. It is claimed to be out there but there is no evidence for it just like God.
That is it.

So things that lack evidence are real?

Now I don't believe in God, but I do believe that the universe is real, but that is a belief based on faith in the end.

How can you believe the universe is real, but say that you have never observed "real"? Are you not part of the universe?

Why believe at all as you exprience sensory inputs? Isn't the sensory input self-evidence of it existing? How can you even believe unless you exist? You seem lost in a corrupt loop.

If you can actually observe a real universe and not claim it based on how you think, then give the evidence.

The irony of this question has gone over your head, unless it doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So the computer you are using to type your posts isn't real?

...

I have never observed real or God. Please explain how you observe real. I can look out the window and see that the leaves on the trees are green.
But I can't see that my computer is real. I can see my computer, but not that it is real.

Just as I can't see God, I can't see real.
They are both ideas in the mind as far as I can tell.

 

[F1fan]

I have never observed real or God. Please explain how you observe real.

Why should I bother since you can't acknowledge that what I post is real? Do you see the dilemma you create for yourself?

It's self-sabotage to deny that you can observe anything real and then ask others to post real responses. I think you believe that you can't observe anything real, but then go on and treat the things you observe as real anyway. If you insist you can't observe anything real as a philosophical position, then it fails as you observe real things and navigate around them.

I can look out the window and see that the leaves on the trees are green.
But I can't see that my computer is real. I can see my computer, but not that it is real.

Man, you got problems. I hope you don't drive.

Just as I can't see God, I can't see real.
They are both ideas in the mind as far as I can tell.

Abstractions in the mind are not raw sensory data. Unless you have brain damage what your brain process as sensory data is reliable. And your actions prove you trust it despite your philosophical beliefs to the contrary.

 

[Copernicus]

If you're confused about reality how do you manage to pluck on your computer keyboard and post? Doesn't your own cognitive and physical processes tell you something real? You must acknowledge real long enough to get through typing a sentence.

I have never observed real or been told be reality that something is real.
The only case of real I know of is like God. It is claimed to be out there but there is no evidence for it just like God.
That is it.
Now I don't believe in God, but I do believe that the universe is real, but that is a belief based on faith in the end.
If you can actually observe a real universe and not claim it based on how you think, then give the evidence.

Mikkel, "real" is an adjective. "Reality" is the noun that corresponds to it. You obviously do observe reality, because you have admitted that you see the color of cats, presumably with your eyes. Extrapolating from that, you observe reality with all of your senses. I presume that you cannot observe God with any of your bodily senses, so that would exclude God from the real universe that you observe reality with. Something else besides observation may be motivating your belief in God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why should I bother since you can't acknowledge that what I post is real? Do you see the dilemma you create for yourself?

It's self-sabotage to deny that you can observe anything real and then ask others to post real responses. I think you believe that you can't observe anything real, but then go on and treat the things you observe as real anyway. If you insist you can't observe anything real as a philosophical position, then it fails as you observe real things and navigate around them.

Man, you got problems. I hope you don't drive.

Abstractions in the mind are not raw sensory data. Unless you have brain damage what your brain process as sensory data is reliable. And your actions prove you trust it despite your philosophical beliefs to the contrary.

Yeah, I treat them as real, but from that doesn't follow that they are real. You do understand that, don't you???
If that was how it worked, then treating God as real, would make God real. But neither of us accept that. So I don't accept that either for my treating this as real. It doesn't make it real, it just means I treat it like that, but that is not evidence that it is real!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, "real" is an adjective. "Reality" is the noun that corresponds to it. You obviously do observe reality, because you have admitted that you see the color of cats, presumably with your eyes. Extrapolating from that, you observe reality with all of your senses. I presume that you cannot observe God with any of your bodily senses, so that would exclude God from the real universe that you observe reality with. Something else besides observation may be motivating your belief in God.

No, I don't observe reality. That is an abstract and to claim I observer reality is a case of reification. Reality is not a concrete observation, it is an abstract.
I can state that I have an experience of a cat as relevant, but that doesn't mean that the cat is real. It means I have an experience.
Now I do believe that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable, but if you can solve this, then you are the first one in recorded history to do so:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Copernicus]

No, I don't observe reality. That is an abstract and to claim I observer reality is a case of reification. Reality is not a concrete observation, it is an abstract.

It strikes me that you are asking the impossible, since there is literally nothing that you can observe concretely. Everything you see with your eyes is nothing more than a subjective experience, which you are hesitant to take seriously. After all, you could be hallucinating everything that you think is a concrete observation. Hence, there is no such thing as a concrete observation. So why are you asking anyone to give you evidence of reality? You've already acknowledged that there isn't any evidence other than these unreliable, possibly delusional, experiences of observing things.

I can state that I have an experience of a cat as relevant, but that doesn't mean that the cat is real. It means I have an experience.
Now I do believe that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable, but if you can solve this, then you are the first one in recorded history to do so:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I won't be wasting any sleep over solving this momentous problem of being able to prove that you are right to believe that reality is real, even though you are very properly skeptical of literally everything you experience. Good luck with that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It strikes me that you are asking the impossible, since there is literally nothing that you can observe concretely. Everything you see with your eyes is nothing more than a subjective experience, which you are hesitant to take seriously. After all, you could be hallucinating everything that you think is a concrete observation. Hence, there is no such thing as a concrete observation. So why are you asking anyone to give you evidence of reality? You've already acknowledged that there isn't any evidence other than these unreliable, possibly delusional, experiences of observing things.



I won't be wasting any sleep over solving this momentous problem of being able to prove that you are right to believe that reality is real, even though you are very properly skeptical of literally everything you experience. Good luck with that.

Well, here it is as simple as I learned it from non-relgious people. To claim and believe something is a fact, is potentional dangerous and is usually followed by more cases of being "wrong". And in the end it can lead to doing "wrong" things to other humans. I mean just look as religion.
Now I then look closer at the other side and figured out that was also a belief system of that in effect the universe is natural.

So now, I just point there is no evidence in either of these cases: The universe is natural or the universe is created by God.
Your kind of non-religious taught me also to ask for evidence and I also do that with your beliefsystem. That is it.

BTW I believe with faith that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable.