We Never Know
No Slack
"We don't believe there is no designer"
Lmao!
Who is we and why do youns believe there is a designer?
Fyi..."We don't believe there is no designer" means you believe there is a designer.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you detect "design"?
- Thread starter TagliatelliMonster
- Start date
Lmao!
Who is we and why do youns believe there is a designer?
Fyi..."We don't believe there is no designer" means you believe there is a designer.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Just as I thought. While awaiting evidence for the supernatural, you follow the evidence, iow believe that there is no supernatural.
You can't follow what you call evidence and believe there are no gods and also defer belief in gods (sit on the fence).
Pogo
Well-Known Member
yup, if we cannot see a designer, then we don't assume one exists.
We are following the evidence that there is no designer needed for what we observe.
Yup, we are not claiming there is proof of no designer, we are just not claiming that there is evidence of a designer and thus far, there is no evidence that a designer is necessary.
Gods/Designers are deferred until there is some evidence they exist and explain anything, thus far no soap.
you have obviously never done any science, so you don't even know how silly your position sounds.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
LMAO, It is hopefully way to late for you if you confuse lack of belief with belief of lack.
Though this begins to explain why you seem unable to follow any logic.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
There’s really nothing to be proves.
As an atheist, I believe that God does not exist.
This belief (or claim, as you call it) is not something that I would ever try to prove. So I’m not sure what kind of evidence I’m supposed to be hiding. What would be the nature of this evidence? I can’t prove my atheist beliefs.
As for your claims, I don’t know what they are, nor do I know why you might or might not feel a “need” to prove them.
People prove claims because they enjoy proving their claims, or maybe somebody is paying them to prove their claims, and they enjoy spending the money.
Proving things is a voluntary action.
According to Richard Feynman, you can just tell the physicists to do their own damn calculations!
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
I like that!
I was worried that I might not wake up tomorrow morning, given my advanced age, but I realize now that my advanced age just means that I’ve accumulated more evidence that I’ll wake up tomorrow morning than young folks have.
Thru the use of science, I was ably to convert my pessimistic outlook on life with a more optimistic outlook.
I feel better, already!
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
It took me a while to realize what a Duende was.
Aparently, they have those in Ireland, as well, which is pretty cool.
In some places they can be quite mean, but the Irish Duendes never looked mean to me, and patiano Duendes look just like Irish Duendes, so I was surprised.
Yes. Science forms and tests models of reality. It assesses evidence. Religion is more multi-faceted. It's different things to different people.
Ideally religion deals with questions of purpose, values, significance, morality, &c. Unfortunately it often trespasses onto science's turf with doctrinal claims about physical reality.
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia
Science is about ontological reality; about how the world or universe works. Religion is a separate magisterium.
Science generally stays in its lane. Religion tends to wander.
Secular education is about concrete facts. It would prefer to ignore religion, if only religion weren't repeatedly getting in its face, trying to subvert scientific reasoning and block student exposure to doctrinally inconvenient facts.
And religion tries to subvert it.
Religion often retards analytic skill and the habit of thinking rationally. It discourages skepticism, questioning, reason, and analysis, in favor of faith.
The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict
It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence. A prominent hypothesis states that this correlation reflects behavioral biases toward intuitive problem solving, which causes errors when intuition conflicts with reasoning. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The religious schools are, yes. Secular education, on the other hand teaches evidence-based facts and thinking.
I don't consider teaching investigation and questioning to be indoctrination.
Propaganda indoctrinates us into believing a preferred narrative. It discourages questioning it.
Is it supposed to? Does it claim to? What's your point?
Religion doesn't do a very good job, either.
It depicts a jealous, impulsive, cruel and vindictive god. It gives many conflicting examples of proper conduct, and promotes a lot of behavior that very few would consider moral today.
Governments often do suppress His more compassionate teachings as impractical and seditious.
How did you come up with that interpretation?
You're preaching a religious mythology. Can you support it rationally?
Don't just preach. Support your assertions.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
My belief in the existence of unicorns is a result of my faith in the capabilities of science.
I’m not saying that it’ll be easy, but without faith it’ll be impossible. We’ll just give up on the whole idea of creating a unicorn, and then what will our great, great grandchildren ride to school on?
Evo-Devo (Despacito Biology Parody) | A Capella Science
And this is why I question your ability to think.
Who has the burden of proof, and what is the reasonable default position if the burden isn't met?
I am making no claim. I have no burden, so no need to prove a negative -- that a designer does not exist.
The claim is yours, and the burden. If you can't support it logically, with objective evidence, the default position stands -- automatically.
Belief is withheld, pending such support.
OK, so with no evidence of existence, non-existence is assumed.
If that's what you're saying, I'm on board, but I suspect it's not. Clarify?
And as I said, no evidence of non-existence is needed for the position to stand. It's the blank slate we start with.
You're misinterpreting our request for evidence of the claim, or our pointing out that you have none and haven't met your burden; as fighting tooth and nail against the claim. No the claim was never substantiated in the first place.
More faulty reasoning.
M
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Overall good post.
One small detail. Non-existence as a concept is philosophy and "bad" philosophy at that. You can't observe non-existence. It is a cognitive concept made up of 2 abstract that have no observational evidence for both of them.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That life is chemically based is what we conclude when we study it, because all we see at bottom are chemical processes.
What is it exactly that you think is being "ignored"?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why are you repeating the same mistake that has already been addressed?
Your mistake is in the word "no" there.
A hypothesis is going to be about how things are or DO work. Not how they are not or do not work.
No, there is no hypothesis that says there is "no design".
Just like there is no hypothesis of gravity that says that there are "no graviton pixies".
If you still don't understand this PRATT then I don't know what else to tell you.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
How many times can you use the word "no" / "not" in a sentence?
It is not. Try making a positive case FOR design instead of merely stating the obvious of the unfalsifiable not being falsifiable.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
With the same argument that no undetectable graviton pixies are needed.
Try making a positive claim.
I made no such claim.
I tend to stay clear of meaningless claims.
It's why I also don't claim that there are no undetectable graviton pixies regulating gravity.
What I DO say, is that there is no reason to think that there IS such a thing.
If you think there is, then it's upto you to make a case FOR that positive claim.
But all you seem to be able to do is point out the obvious that there is no testable claim such things NOT being the case. That, and argue strawmen.
Here's a good exercise for you for future reference. Whenever you try to make a claim / case concerning a designer of the universe, replace "universe" with "gravity" and "designer" with "undetectable graviton pixies". Then see if the "argument" works just the same. If it does, try and do better.
Exactly, so why do you keep pointing out the obvious?
This is false. Archeologists, for example, do exactly that all the time.
And it's in fact what the thread is about.
I have not once actually claimed that.
Who's dishonest here, really?
I would say it's the person that's insisting on arguing such strawmen.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This isn't about belief or disbelief. It's about being accurate.
People claiming to having done a certain thing is not the same as those people actually having done the thing being claimed.
Claims and facts are not the same thing.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Point?Well, here is another version of science and yes @TagliatelliMonster I am break my promise, but I don't care:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
As relevant:
"
That Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[60]
Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[66] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[67] "The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. (Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way "prove" the validity of induction — an endeavor virtually abandoned after Hume demonstrated its futility two centuries ago)."[68] Gould also notes that natural processes such as Lyell's "uniformity of process" are an assumption: "As such, it is another a priori assumption shared by all scientists and not a statement about the empirical world."[69] According to R. Hooykaas: "The principle of uniformity is not a law, not a rule established after comparison of facts, but a principle, preceding the observation of facts ... It is the logical principle of parsimony of causes and of economy of scientific notions. By explaining past changes by analogy with present phenomena, a limit is set to conjecture, for there is only one way in which two things are equal, but there are an infinity of ways in which they could be supposed different."[70] "
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Every human came about by the natural process of biological procreation.What is more difficult to appear on its own due to natural processes: a robot or a human?
Every robot came about through manufacturing.