How do you detect "design"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Well, that was not by point. By point is that these here are not parts of the universe according to you:

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I certainly don't know 'everything.' But logic tells me that seeds did not come about by themselves, I.e., without an intelligent designer. They're more fantastic than a cabin. Now do I know anything beyond that now? No.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I certainly don't know 'everything.' But logic tells me that seeds did not come about by themselves, I.e., without an intelligent designer. They're more fantastic than a cabin. Now do I know anything beyond that now? No.

Can you show that as a standard logical deduction or any other logical method?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, all those things have natural causes due to the fundamental makeup of the universe, no evidence of design anywhere.

I assume you don't really care about knowing about any of this, because your ignorance makes it easier to continue your belief in ancient mythology.

Let's say scientists haven't been investigating these things for a long time, I.e., according to you, I suppose you figure history and writing about science and evolution or creation hasn't been around THAT long, right? So I figure you figure that maybe humans have been thinking about these things for a few thousand years. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you show that as a standard logical deduction or any other logical method?

So do you think that physical means by nature and evolution and not by an intelligent designer has packed all that information into a little seed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's say scientists haven't been investigating these things for a long time, I.e., according to you, I suppose you figure history and writing about science and evolution or creation hasn't been around THAT long, right? So I figure you figure that maybe humans have been thinking about these things for a few thousand years. What do you think?

But thinking doesn't determine that with in not caused by thinking.
If thinking worked like that, I could think you into Hell as a fact. I don't believe thinking works like that. What about you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So do you think that physical means by nature and evolution and not by an intelligent designer has packed all that information into a little seed?

I don't know. But you claim logic so you show that other than just claiming it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. But you claim logic so you show that other than just claiming it.

Of course that's what my mind says now. I say now because I did not always think about these things but now I do. And it does not seem logical to me that there is no creator or master designer even though I surely do not know how God did it, but I think there is a greater intelligent force than what "meets the eye."

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. But you claim logic so you show that other than just claiming it.

Just to let you know (so you don't wonder, hehe) I'm signing off hopefully for a while. Maybe -- I'll be back later. Nice talking with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course that's what my mind says now. I say now because I did not always think about these things but now I do. And it does not seem logical to me that there is no creator or master designer even though I surely do not know how God did it, but I think there is a greater intelligent force than what "meets the eye."

Yeah, you can think all you like, but the moment you say logic, you have to show it other than just thinking it.

 

[McBell]

Earth does Not show design to you ? Gravity doesn't show design to you ? Earth's water cycle doesn't show design to you ?
You know when you go to sleep at night that securely in the morning the sun will be there in the sense dawn will happen
You never worry that the sun light will not be there when you wake up
You know if you turn on the morning NEWS the reporter will never say, " The sun did Not come up this morning "

No
No
No

I am not one to assume design whenever I see a pattern.

 

[Brian2]

Since the dawn of science there has been exactly nothing found to study.
Now since there has not been anything found to study, nor has anything been presented to study, science does not bother with it.
Which means unless/until something to study is found/presented, it will be as though god does not even exist outside the minds of those who insist god exists.

It is true that science cannot study spirits. Yet people who should know better, think that science should be able to do this, and if it cannot, it is not the fault of science, but is because spirits do not exist. That is called scientism imo, and it is not an insult, just a fact.

You really should just flat out ask someone if they believe that god does not exist instead of just assuming it.

It is no assumption when I read what people say which indicates this.

Are you saying you do not know the diffence?

No.

 

[Brian2]

No discovery of science can disprove the existence of a god, but if science shows us that the world works automatically without intelligent supervision, then the question of whether a god set it all in action becomes irrelevant and any such god becomes irrelevant. It's also an unanswerable question.

Science has not shown that the world works automatically without intelligent supervision.
The question about a creator is never irrelevant. All irrelevance would show is that the person is using an argument from ignorance,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and it is not because there is a lack of evidence, it is because the person refuses to see the evidence because of previously held belief that empiricism is the only way to knowledge.

What you are saying is that the god to which you refer is undetectable by any means at any time or place, which means that it has no discernible impact on reality, and once again, the question of its existence becomes irrelevant. It also makes it indistinguishable from a fictional character, which also cannot affect reality. The ideas that such things exist can affect individual realities, but if their referents don't exist or don't impact existence, they are indistinguishable from the nonexistent and can be treated as nonexistent.

You no doubt speak as a representative of science and empiricism and should write as such and qualify what you say with the admission that it applies to science and the work of science only and has no impact on the reality in the real world where people are claiming that God has an impact on their lives every day, and that impacts the world big time.

I disagree. That's a description of what science does. You want to cling onto concepts like gods, a spiritual realm, and supernaturalism. You want to call them real but beyond science's purview, and you can, but empiricists are free to disregard all such claims. Their attention is on what IS discernible, not what cannot be detected.

Empiricists are free to disagree but are just using faith in their worldview to say that my faith is not true and that my experiences are imagination.

Besides being impossible, it would be a useless demonstration to an empiricist, who already has no designer in his worldview.

So why do atheists want theists to demonstrate what is impossible?

It means that the process runs itself automatically. If a god were once involved in that, it's not now. The god you describe actually does nothing anymore and is needed for nothing if nature can unfold according to ancient principles that act automatically.

And how do you know that the laws of nature act automatically?

 

[Brian2]

What God? Show us one exists, and then does things. OK?

I can show you but you have already chosen not to believe any evidence I have for God.

Glad you understand that gods are irrelevant to explaining how things are.

Yes I think I have always said that. But they are not irrelevant in explaining why things are.

Thus far there’s no evidence of any gods, and there is no evidence of any prophecy. So the choice is to reject what believers believe.

The choice was to say that empiricism and science are the only ways to find out the true. The rejection of the rest of theism is automatic unless God shows Himself to you under your rules.

The fact that there’s no factual basis for your religious beliefs means they are rejected by logical default. Show us facts that your beliefs are rational. Until then we throw them out.

Your choice.

 

[Brian2]

You have your burden of proof wrong, which is why you keep screwing up. There is no need to "prove things were not designed". The null hypothesis is to assume that a claimed event did not happen. For example:

Q: Did Tim murder Bob? A: Well there is no evidence showing that he did not murder Bob!! He must be guilty

That is your thought process in regards to design. The burden of proof is not upon others to prove that there is no design. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that there is a design. Otherwise the proper rational assumption holds, that there is no design.

Yes I know the logic and agree but you need to keep up with the discussion that I was in with TagliatelliMonster (Tagliatelli being a traditional type of pasta from the Italian regions of Emilia-Romagna and Marche.) and not just answer words on a screen without knowing the context.

Why would any rational person do that.

Again your answer appears to know nothing of the context of the conversation.

 

[Brian2]

True, those who accept Theistic Evolution believe God Created our physical existence Naturally as scientific knowledge reveals.

That would be good, if science was able to say that God created it all.

Religious beliefs and the interpretation of prophesies would be a separate issue and involve conflicting claims between religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and science for the most part not involved.

Yes I agree.

 

[shunyadragon]

That would be good, if science was able to say that God created it all.

It is a matter of fact that like all religious beliefs in God or any belief such as Theistic Evolution science cannot be able say that God Created it all.

Theistic Evolution simple accepts the overwhelming evidence that the science knowledge of evolution, and over 4 billion years of th ehistory of the earth and over 13 billion years of the history of the universe Theistic Evolution accepts that God Created our physical existence,

Creation beliefs based on ancient tribal scriptures without provenance are as a matter of fact not viable nor intellectually honest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can show you but you have already chosen not to believe any evidence I have for God.



Yes I think I have always said that. But they are not irrelevant in explaining why things are.



The choice was to say that empiricism and science are the only ways to find out the true. The rejection of the rest of theism is automatic unless God shows Himself to you under your rules.



Your choice.

Well, the doubt you have towards the type of evidence you don't accept and the acceptance of your type of evidence, is not the same as my doubt.
I doubt both types.
So there are in effect 3 variants of doubt in play.
Only doubts science.
Only doubts religion.
Doubts both.

So I in effect just doubt your version as I doubt science for in effect the metaphysics/ontology and the epistemology of truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science has not shown that the world works automatically without intelligent supervision. how do you know that the laws of nature act automatically?

It's like you asking how I know that an elevator works automatically. Nobody appears to be operating it and its movements are predictable given its inputs (users pushing buttons). Could there be an unseen operator there anyway? It's not an idea I would devote any energy to or make any decisions worrying about.

Natural laws don't require intelligent supervision to operate. A fertilized human zygote will gestate until parturition without any intelligent intervention. Solar systems form, stars ignite, and heavy elements form without intelligent supervision. Rain and lightning occur spontaneously. You imagine that somebody is tinkering with all of that and guiding it, but what would its job be?

The rise of deism followed the first wave of scientists, who revealed the clockwork universe to us. Once it became apparent that the universe could run itself on autopilot wherever we investigated it, a ruler god was no longer needed. Gods were relegated to designing and constructing the universe, but then leaving it to run automatically.

The second wave of scientists, who gave us evolutionary theory and the Big Bang, showed us that a builder god was also not necessary. The universe could unfold from a seed into what we see today without intelligent supervision.

The question about a creator is never irrelevant.

It is to me. It's a position with a name: Apatheism - Wikipedia.

I enjoy these discussions, but whether there was a god involved creating our reality at some point or not might be interesting to know, but not having that answer doesn't seem to matter. I also expect to never have an answer. I expect to die not knowing, and I expect that to be the end for me.

Empiricists are free to disagree but are just using faith in their worldview

No, empiricism is based in evidence. And no faith is necessary to reject theistic worldviews.

why do atheists want theists to demonstrate what is impossible?

I don't. I know you can't demonstrate the god you believe in, and I have never and will never ask you for evidence. I will tell you that I need it to believe and that I know that you can't provide it. It looks like you agree.

you have already chosen not to believe any evidence I have for God.

Your offered evidence isn't convincing. If it were, I'd be a theist.

 

[Brian2]

And when you talk to any chemists who actually work in the field they tell you that Tour doesn't know what he is talking about

James Tour is just saying that the chemists in the field are over exaggerating where science is when it comes to the origin of life. He says that he does speak to chemists in the field in private and finds out what they really think. He is a high achieving organic chemist and knows what it takes to make synthesise molecules and how much harder it would be in the wild rather than in a controlled environment of the lab.

If gods exist and have a measurable effect on the universe then science should be able to determine this, thus far however no measurable effect of any god has been seen so science ignores them as whether they exist or not makes no difference.

It is not known that gods make no difference, but yes, science ignores them and I know that and it is no doubt a needed thing to do in science.
People do claim to be influenced by God however and that has a big impact on the world, whether the gods are real or not.
Science is one thing, and ignoring God in science is just what needs to happen it seems, but to transport that to the rest of a person's life is not sensible imo.
Science cannot study the effects of a spirit God, but science cannot say that spirits don't exist.