How do you detect "design"?

[Valjean]

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

That's true. If it can't be observed. measured, falsified or tested it is indistinguishable from non-existence. There is nothing for science to work with.
Science can't study that which doesn't exist.

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.

No, you are not using real evidence. You are using popular folklore, tradition, familiarity, and personal feelings. What makes these credible? What consistent insights, conclusions or predictions derive from them?

Many people believe what science tells them and think it must be true because "they are the experts". It is sad that people get indoctrinated like this.

I agree. "Question authority" is my motto.
The virtue of science is that it's conclusions are explained, and based on facts and observations that can be researched by anyone interested.

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

Until one decides to question the folklore, "facts," and social norms she was brought up with, but this degree of intellectual rigor is inconvenient and may have undesired social consequences. Most just go with the flow and unquestioningly accept the prevailing social mythos.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's true. If it can't be observed. measured, falsified or tested it is indistinguishable from non-existence. There is nothing for science to work with.
Science can't study that which doesn't exist.

...

Yeah, that applies to morality as that, useful as that, beutifull as that and religion as that.
And existence as a word comes from philosophy and is not science.

 

[Valjean]

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.

No. He's deferring belief in that which is unevidenced. It has nothing to do with science. It's the conclusion mandated by reason.

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

...And supposed all sorts of contradictory facts about these gods, their opinions, and their interactions with us.

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.

You're free to google the facts and studies these conclusions were drawn from.

 

[McBell]

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

why should anyone consider the idea that there is design and a designer when nobody has shown these things?

If you don't like any evidence I might offer then that is a problem you have imo.

I agree.
I, and many others, have a problem with your "evidence".
Mainly because your standards for evidence is so low, it does not even pose a tripping hazard.

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

I agree.

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.

Your not being able to present any good evidence for God is...

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.

Still clinging onto "you can not prove my beliefs false, therefore they are true."?

 

[Valjean]

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.

No. One side is working from evidence, the other from faith. The skeptics have no need to justify their skepticism. They have no burden of proof. Falsehood is logically assumed, absent evidence.
If your side cannot meet its burden -- which you've just acknowledged -- the rational position is skepticism, pending such evidence.

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.

We have no burden to show a designer. You're the one making the claim. The burden to evidence this designer is on you. If you cannot meet it, the 'no designer' position automatically stands. There is no logical need to defend it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. One side is working from evidence, the other from faith. The skeptics have no need to justify their skepticism. They have no burden of proof. Falsehood is logically assumed, absent evidence.
If your side cannot meet its burden -- which you've just acknowledged -- the rational position is skepticism, pending such evidence.

We have no burden to show a designer. You're the one making the claim. The burden to evidence this designer is on you. If you cannot meet it, the 'no designer' position automatically stands. There is no logical need to defend it.

Well, I am not a skeptic like you, so stop talking as if you talk for all skeptics.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I'm glad that you have faith in reality, and it is certainly your prerogative to also place faith in as many gods and other undetectable beings that you want to believe in, as long as it doesn't cause harm or injury to others.

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

I don't see how you could go wrong by placing your faith in the existence of reality.

 

[Valjean]

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.

What is your evidence that "things no physical in nature" exist?
You're working from conclusion to evidence. That's not a good assessment method.

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.

"Fulfilled prophecy" is hokum. Any religion can claim that, and their conclusions are not consistent.

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 which is unevidenced can logically be dismissed. Unevidenced 'facts' can be or claim anything, and have for thousands of years.
Till someone can come up with concrete evidence of the supernatural, the only rational position is skepticism.

That of course is your belief in critical thinking stepping in and wanting proof.

No. We have no need for proof. As the claimant, the burden is entirely on you.
You have no objective evidence, ergo, our skepticism stands.

"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".

No. It's you who rely on faith. Skepticism is the logical default.

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.

So how does one reasonably assess ontological reality? What tools can be depended on?
You make fantastic and unevidenced claims. People have been doing that for millennia. What makes your unevidenced claims any more valid than those of the ancient Egyptians or Aztecs?

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.

Huh? Logic and the scientific methods are cults? How are you defining "cult?"

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.

The skeptics are not reasonably required to show anything. The entire burden's on the claimants. If the claimants can't meet their burden, skepticism stands -- logically and automatically.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm glad that you have faith in reality, and it is certainly your prerogative to also place faith in as many gods and other undetectable beings that you want to believe in, as long as it doesn't cause harm or cause injury to others.



I don't see how you could go wrong by placing your faith in the existence of reality.

I am not religious.
I am in effect a sort of naturalist, I just don't claim knowledge as some other naturalists do.
That is it.
But for being taught by scientific skeptics, I were told always in regars to claims to ask for evidence.
So if someone say the computer is real, I ask for evidence.
I don't do a double standard between religious claims and other claims. I just ask for evidence for any claim.

 

[Valjean]

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.

No. science has nothing to do with it. We assume nothing. We're making no claims. We assume non-existence because the claimants have not met their burden. Lack of belief follows automatically.
We defer belief in leprechauns, Thor, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster for exactly the same reason.

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

So why no consensus about him/her/them?

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.

Just google the studies, and evaluate them yourself.

 

[Valjean]

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.

No!
One side makes a claim, the other does not. One side bears a burden of proof, the other does not.

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.

The lack of belief in a designer is the logical default, absent evidence. No poof or evidence is required. If the claim of a designer is not supported, lack of belief follows automatically.

Brian, you seem to believe this is a battle of conflicting claims. It is not. Only one side is making any claim. Only one side bears any burden of proof.

 

[Valjean]

We are talking about the universe.

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.

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.

Hypotheses are false till shown to be true, noöne claimed otherwise.

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

Science tells us that the God-claim is insufficiently evidenced. It makes no claims about any god or spirit that leaves no evidence for it to examine.

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.

Science doesn't claim to.

Brian, you don't understand science or logic. You're operating from an imaginary understanding of this issue.

 

[Valjean]

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

Because it's the logical default.
"No designer" is not a claim, it's the logical position remaining when the actual claimant has not met his burden.

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.

No. It's not that we don't like the evidence. It's because this "evidence" is insubstantial.
You don't seem to understand what constitutes valid evidence.

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

Evidence, please. The varying mythologies of past cultures were based on exactly the same evidence you base your claims on.

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

True. Science makes no claims about things it cannot examine. Skepticism is the default.
Again. You don't understand how science works or what it 'claims'.

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.

It is a good reason to dismiss the claim, pending evidence. Isn't that what you do when you deny claims about unicorns or Isis?
Faith is unfounded belief. It's exactly the same foundation that supports belief in gryphons, Quetzalcoatl, and Odin. Do you believe in these?

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.

No-one is making any claim or producing any evidence for "no gods."
There is no need for negative evidence. We have no burden of proof. You're the one making the claim. If you cannot support it with evidence, the claim is, logically, set aside.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, that applies to morality as that, useful as that, beutifull as that and religion as that.
And existence as a word comes from philosophy and is not science.

What concrete facts can be used to discover a morality woven into the fabric of the universe?

 

[Pogo]

What concrete facts can be used to discover a morality woven into the fabric of the universe?

The moth infestation in the Capitol?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

why should anyone consider the idea that there is design and a designer when nobody has shown these things?..........................................

Walking in the woods and come across a well-built cabin one knows that cabin was designed by a designer.
In order to build a cabin there has to be intelligence, with intelligence there is a mind, with a mind there is a person and with a person there is personality.
To me, the Earth (our cabin home) shows design and the design shows a designer aka the intelligent person and personality of God

 

[Pogo]

Walking in the woods and come across a well-built cabin one knows that cabin was designed by a designer.
In order to build a cabin there has to be intelligence, with intelligence there is a mind, with a mind there is a person and with a person there is personality.
To me, the Earth (our cabin home) shows design and the design shows a designer aka the intelligent person and personality of God

Design compared to what? The tree next to the cabin wasn't designed? I know how to build a cabin, and I know I exist, but I've never seen anyone who can build a universe let alone any evidence that this builder exists.;

Your argument is just the argument from incredulity/ignorance. You don't know how it was done so you posit something with no evidence of it's existence or capabilities.
This argument is thousands of years old and it has never been valid.
That said, it is not disprovable either so I and most educated people just ignore it, but you are free to believe it if you wish.

 

[McBell]

Walking in the woods and come across a well-built cabin one knows that cabin was designed by a designer.

Yes.
Things that we already know have to be designed are designed.

In order to build a cabin there has to be intelligence, with intelligence there is a mind, with a mind there is a person and with a person there is personality.

Yes.
Things we already know to have to have intelligence blah blah blah, have to have intelligence blah blah blah.

Please note the "already know" part.

To me, the Earth (our cabin home) shows design and the design shows a designer aka the intelligent person and personality of God

Ah, so it is nothing more than "to you"?

Hopefully that is not all you got.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.
Things that we already know have to be designed are designed.

Yes.
Things we already know to have to have intelligence blah blah blah, have to have intelligence blah blah blah.

Please note the "already know" part.

Ah, so it is nothing more than "to you"?

Hopefully that is not all you got.

It depends on what a person has learned and believes. For instance, before I believed in God as the one who made the heavens and the earth, I appreciated nature but figured trees, for instance, might come from a little seed and grow fantastically. All by nature, no God involved at all. But later I realized that yes, if I saw a cabin in a secluded place I would know it had a human maker. While someone may have planted seeds and vegetation grew, the seeds were not made by human hands. But that was not until I believed that there is a Supreme Creator who does not need humans to make seeds. No matter how they came about, there is a difference between what people build and what nature may bring.

 

[Pogo]

It depends on what a person has learned and believes. For instance, before I believed in God as the one who made the heavens and the earth, I appreciated nature but figured trees, for instance, might come from a little seed and grow fantastically. All by nature, no God involved at all. But later I realized that yes, if I saw a cabin in a secluded place I would know it had a human maker. While someone may have planted seeds and vegetation grew, the seeds were not made by human hands. But that was not until I believed that there is a Supreme Creator who does not need humans to make seeds. No matter how they came about, there is a difference between what people build and what nature may bring.

Yes that is the point, we can say the cabin is designed because we know who can and how they do it.
As you say nature does the seeds. I.e. beyond that we don't know, maybe there is design, maybe there isn't, we may believe something but we don't know. Hence we are agnostic to a designer.