How do you detect "design"?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is truly unfortunate that you live in materialistic illusion and take that to be evidence against the omnipotent One.

You used the word unfortunate, which implies that there is something lost by not holding your view, which you depict as seeing further, or that there is something gained by doing whatever it is that you think others are less fortunate for not also doing. But you can't name a single advantage, can you? I know this for having asked dozens of others to share some of their insights and how those have benefitted them. None have an answer, and I assume that you also can demonstrate nothing at all to support your inference that you are better off or that others are worse off than you.

Unlike you I have actually seen evidence for God. But that is only because I was "chosen" by birth.

Even if we stipulate to that, so what? I have not seen evidence for gods. Why should I feel that you are better off for it?

I feel sorry for you as you will have to wait until death to wake up and see the fact that an ultimate reality as proven by Langan and other geniuses is real.

Once again, even if we stipulate to that, where's the loss in waiting to learn that?

Metaphysics is a gift to be unravelled by the truly intelligent.

Same reply. I don't see any gift. I don't see any benefit. If you do, please explain how your metaphysics make life better for you.

People want others to think that they have found something of great value. They want to believe that they have special insights, and so they make claims like yours, claims of having seen further and that conferring something valuable to them. They want others to feel disadvantaged and left behind. They want to be admired and envied, but they offer nothing enviable - just claims like you did.

 

[blü 2]

Oh gosh, pain and suffering and death exist and everyone goes through these things, so God does not exist.
No that very poor logic.

So, your argument is that God exists and is not simply not benevolent but in fact malevolent. Okay, but why worship malevolence?

So all you need is created matter which operates with laws that you can call natural and you can explain everything else, and then say that the supernatural does not exist and the guy who created matter and it's laws.
No that is very poor logic.

Science puts rovers on Mars and devises vaccines for Covid and mass-produces them (and of course much much more).

I trust we can agree that the church has no such track record.

Which rather vindicates the logic you criticize,.

We give you the evidence for God

If you gave evidence for a real God, not one that exists solely as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, then I'm afraid I missed it. Grateful for a reference or better still a link to where you said it.

And then you talk as if atheists are following science and theists are not, and as if science has shown that there is no God.

But as I've said to you before, what real thing, what entity with objective existence, do you intend to denote when you say "God"? What exactly should science be looking for to vindicate your position?

Why has no one done that already?

And this matter evolving into atoms and molecules shows what?

That the universe ─ reality, including humans ─ is made of this stuff.

It certainly does not show that the supernatural is not necessary

Necessary for what?

Again, we give evidence and you do not believe it and even say that you have seen no evidence.

Again, what evidence?

 

[shunyadragon]

It is truly unfortunate that you live in materialistic illusion and take that to be evidence against the omnipotent One. Unlike you I have actually seen evidence for God. But that is only because I was "chosen" by birth.

I feel sorry for you as you will have to wait until death to wake up and see the fact that an ultimate reality as proven by Langan and other geniuses is real.

Every human being has an essence that continues on after death of the body. No amount of atheistic delusion will ever persuade this fact any other way.

One of the evils of atheism that is evident in your words is the fact that they deny the reality of evil. Metaphysics is a gift to be unravelled by the truly intelligent. Hence it is not accepted as obvious by lesser mortals.

Well, if we consider "science as science" and not religious belief of atheist, theist, agnostic or whatever. It remains ALL religious beliefs "including belief in "Intelligent Design and anything you would call evil."are based on subjective assumptions with absolutely no objective evidence. There is absolutely no objective evidence for life after death.

As per the subjective of the thred; Intelligent Design" by any name you choose is a religious belief and not a "factual" consideration.

 

[shunyadragon]

That sentence.

The request is for design in nature beyond human intelligent and construction "using Natural Laws and processes" to create things.

Can you provide any examples of "design" in nature that does not have a natural explanation.

So all you need is created matter which operates with laws that you can call natural and you can explain everything else, and then say that the supernatural does not exist and the guy who created matter and it's laws.
No that is very poor logic.



We give you the evidence for God and you do not believe it and make fun at theists because you do not believe the evidence.
And then you talk as if atheists are following science and theists are not, and as if science has shown that there is no God.
All this is just plain weird.

You have provided absolutely no objective evidence for God not based on subjective belief.

Still waiting . . .

And this matter evolving into atoms and molecules shows what?
It certainly does not show that the supernatural is not necessary,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless you want to say "Science has seen no gods in all of this, so science has shown that Gods are not needed". But that is not science saying it, it is you going beyond science with atheist beliefs, ooops I mean, lack of beliefs.

There is absolutely no objective evidence that God or the supernatural is necessary.

Again, we give evidence and you do not believe it and even say that you have seen no evidence.
That is what is known as "scientism" coming out in what you are saying. But that is not a criticism, that is just a fact.

No "facts." Again . . .
You have provided absolutely no objective evidence for God not based on subjective belief.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Pogo]

That sentence.



Oh gosh, pain and suffering and death exist and everyone goes through these things, so God does not exist.
No that very poor logic.



So all you need is created matter which operates with laws that you can call natural and you can explain everything else, and then say that the supernatural does not exist and the guy who created matter and it's laws.
No that is very poor logic.



We give you the evidence for God and you do not believe it and make fun at theists because you do not believe the evidence.
And then you talk as if atheists are following science and theists are not, and as if science has shown that there is no God.
All this is just plain weird.



And this matter evolving into atoms and molecules shows what?
It certainly does not show that the supernatural is not necessary,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless you want to say "Science has seen no gods in all of this, so science has shown that Gods are not needed". But that is not science saying it, it is you going beyond science with atheist beliefs, ooops I mean, lack of beliefs.



Again, we give evidence and you do not believe it and even say that you have seen no evidence.
That is what is known as "scientism" coming out in what you are saying. But that is not a criticism, that is just a fact.

You don't give evidence, you ask questions about what is not known and say therefore there must be a god, this is an assumption, not evidence.
You say your god is perfect and loving, yet their "designs" are certainly not perfect and pain and suffering and evil can't be claimed as loving if in fact they were designed.
The point is simple, lacking evidence, the rational behaviour is to place your god in the same category you place Leprechauns in. Interesting idea but nothing to base actions on.

This isn't scientism any more than lack of belief in Leprechauns is, though one of the reasons science has made the strides in knowledge it has is because it formally avoids unevidenced explanations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

This isn't scientism any more than lack of belief in Leprechauns is, though one of the reasons science has made the strides in knowledge it has is because it formally avoids unevidenced explanations.

In philosophy of science there are 2 versions of induction, one that produces evidence and one that doesn't.
So it is not that easy as to just declare that formally...

 

[shunyadragon]

I try to be honest about what I see, and I see atheists claiming that Gods do not exist and then I see atheists hiding from giving evidence that there are no gods by claiming that I am the one making the claims and so I need to prove something to them.

Proof is not possible that Gods exist or do not exist, but you claimed there is evidence that God exists, and you have presented no objective evidence this is the case.

 

[Pogo]

In philosophy of science there are 2 versions of induction, one that produces evidence and one that doesn't.
So it is not that easy as to just declare that formally...

example of this other kind of induction please.

 

[F1fan]

That sentence.

Out of context. What is in context is organic chemicals being designed. That cells are designed. That multicelled organisms are designed. That natural laws are designed. Where is your evidence than anything in nature is designed? You like to deflect to what humans design when asked, and that seems to be fear and denial on your part since you can't show us any god exists.

Oh gosh, pain and suffering and death exist and everyone goes through these things, so God does not exist.
No that very poor logic.

What God DOES exist? You have nothing. Why did you end up believing ina God at all? Who told you one exists, and why did you get fooled? You obviously didn't ask for evidence because you would present it to us. You don't.

To use your type of false logic, since God designed life it aslo designed pain and suffering, and death. This includes cancers and defects as a cause for these. Go ahead and explain in your false logic why God designed life that horrible way, including cancers that kill children.

So all you need is created matter which operates with laws that you can call natural and you can explain everything else, and then say that the supernatural does not exist and the guy who created matter and it's laws.
No that is very poor logic.

No, it's observation and science. Notice you fale over and over again to expalin any alternative. You just run away from these questions. So even you know you have no reason to reject science.

We give you the evidence for God and you do not believe it and make fun at theists because you do not believe the evidence.

Because it requires too many assumptions which violate logic and science. We need facts, not your assumptions.

And then you talk as if atheists are following science and theists are not, and as if science has shown that there is no God.
All this is just plain weird.

False. It is noted than many theists get science right. There's just a subset of theists, like yourself, who refuse to get science right, and you try to claim that science is aligned to atheists and not theists. This is demonstrably wrong as evidenced by the many theists on this forum who get science right. So you are being deceptive here, and you got caught.

And this matter evolving into atoms and molecules shows what?

Atoms and molecules don't evolve. Get your science right if you are going to debate.

It certainly does not show that the supernatural is not necessary,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless you want to say "Science has seen no gods in all of this, so science has shown that Gods are not needed". But that is not science saying it, it is you going beyond science with atheist beliefs, ooops I mean, lack of beliefs.

Oh sure, a supernatural can't be rules out. You believers just can't show any evidence that any supernatural exists outside of your imagination. So it's irrelevant. Nature has all the elements for how things have organized in the way we observe them. Humans needed gods to explain nature 2000 years ago. We don't need gods any more.

Again, we give evidence and you do not believe it and even say that you have seen no evidence.

It's not credible evidence. That's not our problem, it's yours.

That is what is known as "scientism" coming out in what you are saying. But that is not a criticism, that is just a fact.

Not it isn't. Your extreme bias is known by all well educated members, and we don't take anything you claim seriously. You seem absolutely stunned that your lack of knowledge isn't making any impact on what the educated understand. That is the entertainment value for us, watching to see how creationists squirm around what science reports.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

example of this other kind of induction please.

That would be Karl Popper and the problem of some to all, in short. Some consider that evidence in some cases, others don't at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet there is more to life than a pile of chemicals, as you know.

No, we do not know.

 

[shunyadragon]

That would be Karl Popper and the problem of some to all, in short. Some consider that evidence in some cases, others don't at all.

Insufficient, confusing and does not address actual differences.,, needs specifics and citation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, we do not know.

Yes, we do. Because you understanding of

No, we do not know.

is not objective or physical. It is subjective as per this non-religious defntion of subjective:
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli.

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

That you claim that is not an objective physical observation, but a subjective cognitive process in your brain.

 

[Pogo]

Karl Popper and the problem of some to all

Which Google tells me Karl Popper says that induction is a myth.
`Still huh?

 

[Ostronomos]

So, your argument is that God exists and is not simply not benevolent but in fact malevolent. Okay, but why worship malevolence?


Science puts rovers on Mars and devises vaccines for Covid and mass-produces them (and of course much much more).

Yes, and science also gave us the Simulation Principle.

I trust we can agree that the church has no such track record.

Which rather vindicates the logic you criticize,.


If you gave evidence for a real God, not one that exists solely as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, then I'm afraid I missed it. Grateful for a reference or better still a link to where you said it.

Again, materialism was proven false by science.

But as I've said to you before, what real thing, what entity with objective existence, do you intend to denote when you say "God"? What exactly should science be looking for to vindicate your position?

Why has no one done that already?


That the universe ─ reality, including humans ─ is made of this stuff.


Necessary for what?


Again, what evidence?

Not only have I seen the evidence for a God I have proven it using logic. You need only consider the logic rather than the evidence which cannot be reproduced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which Google tells me Karl Popper says that induction is a myth.
`Still huh?

Yes, some consider induction a part of science and valid. Other don't consider it valid and nor science.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, some consider induction a part of science and valid. Other don't consider it valid and nor science.

Well I guess that is two types of induction, one scientific and one not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I guess that is two types of induction, one scientific and one not.

No, induction is scientifc and not depending on your philosophy of science. That is the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

So welcome back. Other than thinking God is a logical answer, so you have any actually logical reasoning to back that up.

 

[Brian2]

It is. Demonstrably so.

Demonstrably physical organisms are made from molecules.
Science cannot show that life, which is not made from molecules, comes from molecules, or whether it is additional to those molecules.
Science cannot find any additional things apart from the molecules and physical processes, but science deals with the physical/material universe and it is not known in science how to detect spirit or life or design. All scientists can do is presume that everything is chemically/physically based and start defining life in physical terms only, which they do.