How do you detect "design"?

[Pogo]

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.

Ok, because maybe your god doesn't exist and your reply is totally based on your fantasy about your god's existence. Why, if your god exists, was he so affilicted?
And no, eating an apple without being told not to is not an excuse.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, because maybe your god doesn't exist and your reply is totally based on your fantasy about your god's existence. Why, if your god exists, was he so affilicted?
And no, eating an apple without being told not to is not an excuse.

Where did you get the idea that Adam ate an apple? Someone told you this?

 

[Pogo]

Where did you get the idea that Adam ate an apple? Someone told you this?

No, even I know the story has the female eating the apple.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, even I know the story has the female eating the apple.

Really? Where did you see the Bible says it was an apple for either one?

 

[Pogo]

Really? Where did you see the Bible says it was an apple for either one?

The apple was a metaphor for whatever it was, you well know that that is not the point.
But feel free to give us your version.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, and science also gave us the Simulation Principle.

Yes, science, totally unlike religion, looks into medical questions such as how our senses actually work. The simulations in question are accurate enough as representations of our reality or we'd all be dead.

Again, materialism was proven false by science.

Please refer me to this "proof". I've never heard of it.

Not only have I seen the evidence for a God

Using the simulation principle or the imagination principle?

I have proven it using logic. You need only consider the logic rather than the evidence which cannot be reproduced.

Please

a. define what real entity (as distinct from purely conceptual / notional / imaginary entity) you intend to denote when you say God, such that if I find a real suspect I'll be able to determine whether it's God or not, and then

b. link me to this "proof" you speak of.

 

[YoursTrue]

The apple was a metaphor for whatever it was, you well know that that is not the point.

I am surprised you thought it was an apple even as you called it a metaphor. Anyway, have a good evening.

 

[Pogo]

I am surprised you thought it was an apple even as you called it a metaphor. Anyway, have a good evening.

Well if that is far as you are willing to go to dispel the common misconception, OK

 

[blü 2]

Of course the 'church' has No such track record because: by breaking the Law Adam set up People Rule as superior to God Rule,

How could Adam be guilty of breaking any law when at the time, because of God's specific choice, Adam (like Eve)
was denied the ability to distinguish good from evil, hence was incapable of intending any offense?

in other words, The old adage applies ' give a person enough rope.......'

No, put a baby in a room full of exposed electric wires and then blame it when it gets hurt.

However, both Job and Jesus have the perfect track record that under adverse conditions they proved faithful to God and so can we

The story of Job is one of the most morally offensive stories ever devised, a family murdered and a man ruined for a bet. If those are God's morals, God has disgusting morals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well if that is far as you are willing to go to dispel the common misconception, OK

Charitably, I suggest you read the first few chapters of the Bible if you care to. Specifically you will find the account in chapter 3. It's not very long. You will learn more about it. Yes, have a good evening and perhaps later when you can analyze properly what I said or did not say, that'll be fine.

 

[We Never Know]

I am surprised you thought it was an apple even as you called it a metaphor. Anyway, have a good evening.

I don't think I've ever heard it specified. I've always just heard 'forbidden fruit'.

Wonder why its always an apple used.
William Tell -apple
Newton -apple
Washington -apple tree

 

[Pogo]

Charitably, I suggest you read the first few chapters of the Bible if you care to. Specifically you will find the account in chapter 3. It's not very long. You will learn more about it. Yes, have a good evening and perhaps later when you can analyze properly what I said or did not say, that'll be fine.

Well since it is not a chapter book as my children used to say, what do you consider the first three chapters I should read assuming they are in the book on my shelf?

 

[Pogo]

I don't think I've ever heard it specified. I've always just heard 'forbidden fruit'.

Wonder why its always an apple used.
William Tell -apple
Newton -apple
Washington -apple tree

Any port in a storm.

 

[F1fan]

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

So, no evidence of a God or designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, it is an emergent property, There is no evidence of the need of a god.

You don't need to be very informed to look around you and see that all physical bodies are composed of chemicals.

Hey, you got one thing right.

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.

No, that is not what all atheists say. Most atheists lack a belief in gods because those that believe in gods cannot meet their burden of proof. The religious only have themselves to blame.

As with a lot of stuff said about what I have said, it takes my comments out of context.

That appears to be very much in context to me and right on point. So you have no answer for it?

 

[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

Yes we have heard it all before, you claim that there is something we are missing, but you can't show us what it is.
Any time you can bring us evidence that is not just your interpretation of an old story, we will listen. Until then?

 

[Brian2]

If I'm following correctly:
No. You don't understand how to think. You don't understand logic.

I'l go with the first one, that you are not following correctly. But that is OK, I don't expect atheists to be able to follow correctly. I forgive you.

It is reasonable to believe in what's empirically evidenced. It's irrational to believe in that which is unevidenced.

It sounds like you mean that you believe that there is no designer and do not believe that there is a designer?
or at least that would be your position if there is empirical evidence that there is no designer and no evidence that there is a designer, correct?
So where is that empirical evidence that there is no designer?

Without actual evidence, the reasonable position is deferred belief.

Without empirical evidence either way, it is reasonable not do make up your mind.

So why are there so many people who have not made up their mind about the existence of a designer but fight tooth and nail against the idea that there is a designer?

 

[Pogo]

I'l go with the first one, that you are not following correctly. But that is OK, I don't expect atheists to be able to follow correctly. I forgive you.



It sounds like you mean that you believe that there is no designer and do not believe that there is a designer?
or at least that would be your position if there is empirical evidence that there is no designer and no evidence that there is a designer, correct?
So where is that empirical evidence that there is no designer?



Without empirical evidence either way, it is reasonable not do make up your mind.

So why are there so many people who have not made up their mind about the existence of a designer but fight tooth and nail against the idea that there is a designer?

how many people do you know that believe in Leprechauns?
Why aren't there more outside of areas that were brought up to believe in them?

We don't believe there is no designer, it just seems smarter to believe there are no Leprechauns until you can show us one at the end of the rainbow and the pot of gold would be a nice addition.

You don't believe in Leprechauns do you?

 

[F1fan]

I'l go with the first one, that you are not following correctly. But that is OK, I don't expect atheists to be able to follow correctly. I forgive you.

More bluffing.

It sounds like you mean that you believe that there is no designer and do not believe that there is a designer?

It's all irrelevant since you can't show any evidence of a God/designer. That's why we throw it out.

or at least that would be your position if there is empirical evidence that there is no designer and no evidence that there is a designer, correct?
So where is that empirical evidence that there is no designer?

The same place as your evidence there are no unicorns.

This logical fallacy is a big red flag that believers know they have no evidence to satify the burden of proof they have. Trying to switch the burder of proof is a logical fallacy. Yet you don't known about it, otherwise you wouldn't make the mistake.

But you don't seem to mind making mistakes because you also know you have no evidence for God, but you keep bluffing anyway.

Without empirical evidence either way, it is reasonable not do make up your mind.

Yet you have decided a God exists, and have no evidence to base that decision on.

So why are there so many people who have not made up their mind about the existence of a designer but fight tooth and nail against the idea that there is a designer?

Social influence and indoctrination into religious belief. This is a phenomenon most polks are not aware happening to them. They end up adopting dogma without realization.

 

[Brian2]

The fact that the complexity and function of the universe and of nature -- the basis of your claim of intelligent design -- can be explained without intelligence or conscious design, by ordinary, observable chemistry and physics, obviates the need for any supernatural special pleading.

The fact that you can wave your hand and say 'ordinary observable chemistry and physics' does not take away the complexity of what is in that wave. Basically what you are saying is that you can't see a designer and so no designer is needed. And if there is no designer needed when you cannot see one then you are saying that there was no designer there.
This of course is a long way from deferred belief, which you claim.

And there's abundant evidence of the former, and neither need or evidence o the latter.

So are you following the evidence and saying that there is no designer OR are you deferring belief in a designer?
You can't do both.

But it does know how to reason, and until there is some actual evidence for a designer, the reasonable position is to defer belief.

Science knows that there is no empirical evidence that there is no designer unless you want to call the "lack of evidence for a designer", actual evidence that there is no designer. (the appeal to ignorance fallacy) but that does not stop most scientists from taking a stance and not sitting on the fence when it comes to their beliefs about Gods.
In life the belief of most of them would be that there no gods, that gods are irrelevant.
In a discussion like this however where they might want to be seen to be logical, they would say that they have just deferred belief in a designer (until they die of course when nobody will want them to explain their belief in empiricism and rejection of the history of God revealing Himself to humanity and to explain why they did not live as if God existed, if they seriously lacked belief either way.)