How do you detect "design"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, if you want to do that version of skepticism, then yes. Another one tells us there is no evidence in positive sense for gods as such.
So science doesn't work and theism doesn't work. But I know that, since I am a global skeptic.
So you also don't believe in either one, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

1. I believe that the Bible is God-inspired in transmitting information about God to us humans.
2. I do not understand everything written and preserved, but there are many things that I believe are truthful and reliable testimony without metaphor.
3. Do I understand everything? (No.)
4. Can I prove everything? No. Kinda like the apostle Paul who was transformed after a miraculous appearance to him by Jesus. Did I have such a miraculous occurrence? No, not on that level, but suggesting enough to me that I believe there is a God who cares, and that He exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. I believe that the Bible is God-inspired in transmitting information about God to us humans.
2. I do not understand everything written and preserved, but there are many things that I believe are truthful and reliable testimony without metaphor.
3. Do I understand everything? (No.)
4. Can I prove everything? No. Kinda like the apostle Paul who was transformed after a miraculous appearance to him by Jesus. Did I have such a miraculous occurrence? No, not on that level, but suggesting enough to me that I believe there is a God who cares, and that He exists.

Yeah, if we were to rewrite that as a valid deduction for the proof of God, the problem is that it could valid, but nobody have ever made it sound.

So you are in effect saying that it is not logic as such. It is faith. Fair enough, I just have another faith.

 

[Brian2]

Do you believe it's magically based? Are you a vitalist?
Evidence, please.

Do you believe that dead chemicals magically become alive and conscious?
On the microscopic level it is no doubt hard to know where the line is between machine and life. Maybe life in the form of spirit is what animates larger organisms, those made up of single celled organisms/machines.
This is not really an evidence based thing. Science cannot find or analyse spirit/s. But to assume it/they do not exist because science is not equipped to find it/them is like science saying that God does not exist because science cannot find Gods.
Science does not do that with the supernatural, it is usually atheists who might think that science has shown that spirit or gods do not exist,,,,,,,,,, but it has not.
Science just presumes that chemicals must have magically become alive and conscious,,,,,,,,,,,,, but of course it does not use the word "magically". That word is used by sceptics to mock theists.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

To be honest, when I was in high school I was invited to the "Intellectuals' club." Wow I thought, and I didn't even know I was an intellectual. However the guys that ran the place must have thought so.
That being said, I remember we were discussing the formation of matter, and they were explaining that everything (including wood) was formed of molecules. And I remember from my chemistry class that there was a lot of space somehow in between the parts of cells and molecules. So I was astounded thinking that lots of the desk was simply space. (lolol..)

 

[Brian2]

They are chemicals that form spontaneously in nature, apparently frequently and by multiple pathways. They're even found in space débris.

Yes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, if we were to rewrite that as a valid deduction for the proof of God, the problem is that it could valid, but nobody have ever made it sound.

So you are in effect saying that it is not logic as such. It is faith. Fair enough, I just have another faith.

Now there are prophecies. And because no one (on this earth) has ever seen God, yes -- I have to leave that one up in the air, so to speak, and rely upon God both for direction and hope. I'm still researching more about design and chance, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you believe that dead chemicals magically become alive and conscious?
On the microscopic level it is no doubt hard to know where the line is between machine and life. Maybe life in the form of spirit is what animates larger organisms, those made up of single celled organisms/machines.
This is not really an evidence based thing. Science cannot find or analyse spirit/s. But to assume it/they do not exist because science is not equipped to find it/them is like science saying that God does not exist because science cannot find Gods.
Science does not do that with the supernatural, it is usually atheists who might think that science has shown that spirit or gods do not exist,,,,,,,,,, but it has not.
Science just presumes that chemicals must have magically become alive and conscious,,,,,,,,,,,,, but of course it does not use the word "magically". That word is used by sceptics to mock theists.

Yeah, that is methodological naturaliism and the axiomatic assumptions used for science, you are trying to articulate. Yes, that is so. What is next?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now there are prophecies. And because no one (on this earth) has ever seen God, yes -- I have to leave that one up in the air, so to speak, and rely upon God both for direction and hope. I'm still researching more about design and chance, etc.

Yeah, but you could also accept TOE and still have faith in God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, but you could also accept TOE and still have faith in God.

Obviously some say they do, but I would have to deny or supersede what the Bible says. And not just a few little chapters here and there -- but much of it. And what God would that be, if not the One described in the Bible? (Which prophetic utterances or said inspired utterances by angels or otherwise might one give credence to? Anything they want to or like?)

 

[Brian2]

Who concludes life's chemically based from defining amino acids? Dissect any living thing and all you'll find is chemistry. Noöne's ever found any spirit or magical essence.

That is a problem with science. It has eyes only for the physical/material.
The spirit or magical essence is right there, here. Magically this pile of chemicals is alive and conscious but science can only study the physical side of life and sceptics presume that this life, this consciousness is not magic, that it is just something that can be explained solely by the chemistry. In science life is explained physically but many, many scienctists believe life is more than the physically.

What do you claim to be the basis of life, if not chemistry? What evidence is there for any other conclusion, other than religious mythology?

What evidence is there that chemicals can come to life without the religious mythology?
Just defining life in physical terms is not that evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Obviously some say they do, but I would have to deny or supersede what the Bible says. And not just a few little chapters here and there -- but much of it. And what God would that be, if not the One described in the Bible? (Which prophetic utterances or said inspired utterances by angels or otherwise might one give credence to? Anything they want to or like?)

Well, that is for another thread. Tag me if you start one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, but you could also accept TOE and still have faith in God.

Hopefully I'll be back later -- take care.

 

[Pogo]

Do you believe that dead chemicals magically become alive and conscious?
On the microscopic level it is no doubt hard to know where the line is between machine and life. Maybe life in the form of spirit is what animates larger organisms, those made up of single celled organisms/machines.
This is not really an evidence based thing. Science cannot find or analyse spirit/s. But to assume it/they do not exist because science is not equipped to find it/them is like science saying that God does not exist because science cannot find Gods.
Science does not do that with the supernatural, it is usually atheists who might think that science has shown that spirit or gods do not exist,,,,,,,,,, but it has not.
Science just presumes that chemicals must have magically become alive and conscious,,,,,,,,,,,,, but of course it does not use the word "magically". That word is used by sceptics to mock theists.

Wrong, methodological naturalism which is the basis for science is agnostic to gods and spirits etc. that is why there are many theists and spiritual people who do and understand science who have no problem with their beliefs and science. You obviously have never worked with scientists, I have.

 

[McBell]

That is a problem with science. It has eyes only for the physical/material.

yes, because it can be demonstrated beyond wishful thinking.

The spirit or magical essence is right there, here.

And until you can show that it is more than wishful thinking, it remains wishful thinking.

Magically this pile of chemicals is alive and conscious but science can only study the physical side of life and sceptics presume that this life, this consciousness is not magic, that it is just something that can be explained solely by the chemistry. In science life is explained physically but many, many scienctists believe life is more than the physically.

Again, until you can show something is more than wishful thinking, it remains wishful thinking.

What evidence is there that chemicals can come to life without the religious mythology?
Just defining life in physical terms is not that evidence.

I have no intentions of repeating something that has already been repeated more times than I can count.

 

[Brian2]

What else is there, besides tradition and religious mythology?
Emotion? Feelings? Faith?

Ideas, emotions, faith, love etc, the stuff of life.
Science can study the brain and chemical reactions in the body to these things and some can presume that means that the religious myth is not true, but it does not show that at all, it just shows that the spirit is connected to the physical body and the 2 interact.
So at the intersection of faith and science there can be confusion as to what science has shown to be true and what it is just guessing at.

 

[Pogo]

To be honest, when I was in high school I was invited to the "Intellectuals' club." Wow I thought, and I didn't even know I was an intellectual. However the guys that ran the place must have thought so.
That being said, I remember we were discussing the formation of matter, and they were explaining that everything (including wood) was formed of molecules. And I remember from my chemistry class that there was a lot of space somehow in between the parts of cells and molecules. So I was astounded thinking that lots of the desk was simply space. (lolol..)

And it is, that is why they had to build a tank holding 55,000 tons of water (~13 million gallons) 3000 ft underground to catch a few neutrinos that can pass all the way through the earth without hitting anything most of the time.

Super-Kamiokande - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just because it seems strange to you doesn't mean it is not real.

 

[Pogo]

That is a problem with science. It has eyes only for the physical/material.
The spirit or magical essence is right there, here. Magically this pile of chemicals is alive and conscious but science can only study the physical side of life and sceptics presume that this life, this consciousness is not magic, that it is just something that can be explained solely by the chemistry. In science life is explained physically but many, many scienctists believe life is more than the physically.



What evidence is there that chemicals can come to life without the religious mythology?
Just defining life in physical terms is not that evidence.

Demonstrate it and science will talk to you about it, just talk about it and we will leave it in the drawer with the Pixie Papers.

 

[Brian2]

Depends how you define "design." To me it implies conscious intent, and there is no objective evidence of that. There are known, unconscious mechanisms that account for the order, complexity and function you attribute to magic and an invisible magician.

Absent evidence, the reasonable position on any claim is deferred belief, is it not?

Yes there are what we call the natural laws, wherever they came from.
Science cannot say where they came from but humans either believe they come from a creator or not.
Sometimes this belief or lack thereof is determined by a preconceived worldview.
Some see the possibility of the supernatural and the historical evidence for it and others reject historical and other evidence and just go the way of only science in determining truth.
This going the way of just science can be problematic since science can only give material answers to question, and so it only confirms any pre existing presumptions or deferred beliefs.

Huh?
Empirical or objective evidence of a magical god: Nil.
Empirical or objective evidence of physics and chemistry: Voluminous.

See what I mean about science. Once you begin to go down a science only road, the physical and chemical answers are reinforced and someone can become more closed off the spiritual answers and treat them as the enemy to the truth, which is of course, the physical/material answers. But really the relationship should be complementary.

 

[Valjean]

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.

So what is life? What is it made of, if not matter?

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.

So if spirit is undetectable, why believe in it? It would be just as reasonable to believe in phlogiston or leprechauns. There could be millions of equally evidenced claims of all sorts of fantastic and undetectable things, creatures, gods, &c. Do you give them all equal credence?

Why can science not detect 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.

What else could they reasonably presume or use as definitive? What reasonable alternative is there?