How do you detect "design"?

[Pogo]

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.



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.

Category error, science does not deal with beliefs about where natural laws come from, it only deals with the demonstrable results of those laws.
That is it, that is all. Many scientists have beliefs about the origins of these laws, but they set them aside when they are engaged in science just as you do when driving your car.

 

[Pogo]

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

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?

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

I rather doubt that if you went back to ancient Greek philosophers that they would have any problem understanding this dichotomy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Category error, science does not deal with beliefs about where natural laws come from, it only deals with the demonstrable results of those laws.
That is it, that is all. Many scientists have beliefs about the origins of these laws, but they set them aside when they are engaged in science just as you do when driving your car.

Don't know if the esteemed scientist Dr. Hawking deal with how he thought Nothingness came from -- or did he believe there might be Quantum Nothingness, and that the universe could have come from -- nothing.? Or Quantum Nothingness or maybe gravity which no one can say for sure how gravity came about, can they?

 

[Valjean]

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.

Observation, hypothesis making and testing is a proven modality. It's designed to eliminate unevidenced, preconceived ideas. Faith is designed to preserve them.

If some people see historical evidence of the supernatural, why have they not presented it for assessment; why is it not generally known?
If historical evidence -- or any sort of evidence for anything -- is good, it will be accepted. If the evidence is for something extraordinary like a god, science will jump on it.

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.

What other kinds of answers are verifiable?
If an answer is immaterial, how would it differ from mere guesswork.? If it can't be supported; can't be confirmed itself, how can it confirm anything?

See what I mean about science. Once you begin to go down a science only road, the physical and chemical answers are reinforced

They're not reīnforced by the materialism or the focus of study. Answers are reīnforced by the supporting evidence adduced.
An unevidenced focus, like spirits or the supernatural, is indistinguishable from a lack of focus or a focus on nothing.

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.

Only existent things can be complimentary.
Focus on the unevidened is indistinguishable from focus on nothing. How can anything be learned, verified or concluded from such a study? How can it be falsified?

 

[Pogo]

Don't know if the esteemed scientist Dr. Hawking deal with how he thought Nothingness came from -- or did he believe there might be Quantum Nothingness, and that the universe could have come from -- nothing.? Or Quantum Nothingness or maybe gravity which no one can say for sure how gravity came about, can they?

not the point, Hawking based his theories/ideas on established observations and the mathematics that corresponded to them, he did not base them on feelings or desires for some ultimate creator, nor did he deny that there might be something beyond his theories.
Secondarily, on reading about this nothing argument, it appears to be that our universe is not the result of a quantum nothingness but a state that allows for our universe to form/exist.
Basing your arguments of an emotional desire for a simple answer that you grew up with or that the many held is not constructive in science and is to be avoided. But I do thank you for being a part of the impetus to learn more about theories of the origin of our universe.

 

[Valjean]

I rather doubt that if you went back to ancient Greek philosophers that they would have any problem understanding this dichotomy.

Why? Wouldn't they have the same problems we're having?

 

[Valjean]

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.

No it doesn't show spirit at all. There is no intersection between the material and the abstract.

 

[Pogo]

Why? Wouldn't they have the same problems we're having?

Dare I say in my ignorance that they were not so bound up in the current religious fervor in their circles.
That said, oops maybe not, I am no scholar of Greek culture.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, and we understand how.
Religion does not, and struggles desperately not to learn how.
Education would threaten the personal incredulity their mythological narrative relies on.

Religion is more about spiritual things and science is about secular
Science is about the world secular view, religion with the biblical dealing with the ethical view of should or should we Not do it
Secular education today is more about scrubbing out the Bible in Academic U.
Education is supposed to teach us how to think
Schools today are more like indoctrination centers
Propaganda teaches us what to think
Science is Not the teacher of morality
The Bible (religion) teaches us the way to serve God ( morality to be governed by )
The world struggles desperately Not to learn about the teachings of Christ and how that affects our lives
Genesis is about getting Earth ready for mankind to inhabit Earth. Who named planet Earth _________ Genesis 1:10

 

[Pogo]

No it doesn't show spirit at all. There is no intersection between the material and the abstract.

Ok, I am willing to entertain the idea that there might be an intersection with something unknown, I just insist that you present something to me that justifies my entertainment. (pun intended)

 

[YoursTrue]

not the point, Hawking based his theories/ideas on established observations and the mathematics that corresponded to them, he did not base them on feelings or desires for some ultimate creator, nor did he deny that there might be something beyond his theories.
Secondarily, on reading about this nothing argument, it appears to be that our universe is not the result of a quantum nothingness but a state that allows for our universe to form/exist.
Basing your arguments of an emotional desire for a simple answer that you grew up with or that the many held is not constructive in science and is to be avoided. But I do thank you for being a part of the impetus to learn more about theories of the origin of our universe.

I do believe that the esteemed Dr. Hawking did not believe in a Creator, if he did he'd also have to figure why he was so sick and for some this is a problem. Combining science with God. Therefore everything he (similar to Dr. Einstein) thought about was regarding as that from a "natural" source of sorts, even though he couldn't prove or figure what gravity is. I am simply looking at what science may say, depending on viewpoint.

 

[Pogo]

Religion is more about spiritual things and science is about secular
Science is about the world secular view, religion with the biblical dealing with the ethical view of should or should we Not do it
Secular education today is more about scrubbing out the Bible in Academic U.
Education is supposed to teach us how to think
Schools today are more like indoctrination centers
Propaganda teaches us what to think
Science is Not the teacher of morality
The Bible (religion) teaches us the way to serve God ( morality to be governed by )
The world struggles desperately Not to learn about the teachings of Christ and how that affects our lives
Genesis is about getting Earth ready for mankind to inhabit Earth. Who named planet Earth _________ Genesis 1:10

Nice little screed, but why. I have no problems with the idea of a morality without referring to an ancient set of myths based on even more ancient myths.
As to my morality, as an atheist from the age of 9 I have been complimented on it more times than I can count and I find some of the most immoral people I know to insist that their morality is based on their understanding of "God".
Words are nice, that which is demonstrable is more valuable to me.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No it doesn't show spirit at all. There is no intersection between the material and the abstract.

A pep rally is designed to crate lively school spirit
A high-spirited horse has spirit ( lively)
God's lively spirit in Scripture is a neuter "IT" (Num. 11:17,25)
- and our lively spirit is also a genderless neuter "IT" - Ecclesiastes 12:7 B
So, ' yes' No intersection between the material and the abstract

 

[Pogo]

I do believe that the esteemed Dr. Hawking did not believe in a Creator, if he did he'd also have to figure why he was so sick and for some this is a problem. Combining science with God. Therefore everything he (similar to Dr. Einstein) thought about was regarding as that from a "natural" source of sorts, even though he couldn't prove or figure what gravity is. I am simply looking at what science may say, depending on viewpoint.

This is probably the rudest and most disgusting thing I have read on this board from a "Christian". You do realize that your statement implies that the affliction and suffering that he went through was a consequence of his lack of belief?

I hope that you would find few Christians that would agree with you, I can't say I know any. If this is your God and a god does exist, I hope it is not yours.

To end this lest you be confused, hope and belief are two different things

 

[Pogo]

A pep rally is designed to crate lively school spirit
A high-spirited horse has spirit ( lively)
God's lively spirit in Scripture is a neuter "IT" (Num. 11:17,25)
- and our lively spirit is also a genderless neuter "IT" - Ecclesiastes 12:7 B
So, ' yes' No intersection between the material and the abstract

yes pep rallies are designed to inspire feeling, but they have no causal effect on ability

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

Of course the 'church' has No such track record because: by breaking the Law Adam set up People Rule as superior to God Rule,
in other words, The old adage applies ' give a person enough rope.......'
Since Adam's choice God does Not interfere with our choices
However, both Job and Jesus have the perfect track record that under adverse conditions they proved faithful to God and so can we

 

[URAVIP2ME]

yes pep rallies are designed to inspire feeling, but they have no causal effect on ability

Just as school spirit (pep rallies) are designed to inspire feeling and school spirit is Not a person
Just as a high-spirited horse shows feeling but we know the horse's high spirit is Not a horse person
We all have different abilities as our life's spirit shows while still alive - Ecclesiastes 12:7 B
At death one's spirit (IT) returns to God in the same way a foreclosed house 'it' is returned to the owner
Any future life for the foreclosed house now lies in the owner's hands and so does any future life for us

 

[Pogo]

Of course the 'church' has No such track record because: by breaking the Law Adam set up People Rule as superior to God Rule,
in other words, The old adage applies ' give a person enough rope.......'
Since Adam's choice God does Not interfere with our choices
However, both Job and Jesus have the perfect track record that under adverse conditions they proved faithful to God and so can we

Ah, so you are the one true "Christian" and all the others are ?" Excuse me if I am not convinced.

 

[Pogo]

Just as school spirit (pep rallies) are designed to inspire feeling and school spirit is Not a person
Just as a high-spirited horse shows feeling but we know the horse's high spirit is Not a horse person
We all have different abilities as our life's spirit shows while still alive - Ecclesiastes 12:7 B
At death one's spirit (IT) returns to God in the same way a foreclosed house 'it' is returned to the owner
Any future life for the foreclosed house now lies in the owner's hands and so does any future life for us

I can track the ownership of a house, the ghosts living in it, no.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is probably the rudest and most disgusting thing I have read on this board from a "Christian". You do realize that your statement implies that the affliction and suffering that he went through was a consequence of his lack of belief?

I hope that you would find few Christians that would agree with you, I can't say I know any. If this is your God and a god does exist, I hope it is not yours.

To end this lest you be confused, hope and belief are two different things

You obviously misunderstood my reply. Which is not unusual from some. No, certainly not, his affliction was not from God, but I'm sure he was not happy about his affliction. Many people wonder, if God exists, why is there so much suffering in this world.