How do you detect "design"?

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are the chances that you will find a functioning robot on a planet in space that has assembled itself from natural chemical and mechanical processes?

Zero. As per definition of what a robot is. A manufactured device.

If you accept that there is no chance of that happening, then the probability that a living being (which is much more complex than any robot) would appear in that same way is much lower.

Complexity is not a factor.
A very very simple robot would still be a manufactured device.

This is why the "argument from complexity" doesn't work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The only question I would ask myself would not be how it appeared there, but who put it there.

Indeed.

Because as you have already determined it to be a ROBOT, it means you have recognized it as a manufactured object. Read the OP.

This is exactly how we distinguish the natural from the unnatural: signs of manufacturing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is more complex: a robot or a living cell?

Complexity is not a factor.

A really simple robot would still be a manufactured device.

Complexity is not an indicator of design.

Read the OP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For those who do not know how a living cell works, a reading like this will give you an idea:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/

After you have studied it, you will know the answer to the question: what is more complex: a robot or a living cell?

Have a good one.

Your silly argument from awe is noted.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Needs more nots.

 

[Valjean]

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.

No! You're doing it again. That is non sequitur, more defective reasoning that I suspect you're projecting onto me.
If you can see evidence of a designer, point it out. If there is no evidence of a thing, the reasonable position is to defer belief in it till there is.
Complexity? Why do you mention it? Are you claiming chemistry or physics, following the laws and constants of the universe, are insufficient to account for such complexity?

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.

Deferring belief in an unevidenced claim does not follow from a claim of need, and I'm not claiming "No Designer." I'm claiming deferred belief pending evidence.

We point out a lack of need as evidence of sufficiency; that established chemistry or physics is sufficient to produce the phenomenon in question, so claiming an additional factor, while possible, is unnecessary less parsimonious, and less likely.

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.

There is no evidence for 'no designer'. No designer is the default; the logical position that already obtains.
A dozen of us have explained this position a hundred times. It's not that complicated:

*Nobody's trying to prove no god.
*No God/unicorn/leprechaun/orbiting teapot is the existing default position -- till evidence is adduced, no god is already the logical, assumed position -- till there is a positive, evidenced reason to assume otherwise.
*Theists have thus far produced neither a need for, nor proper evidence for, their claim. Their proposed evidence always seems factually or logically erroneous.

We keep on pointing out the problems with the evidence, but it doesn't seem to have any effect, plus the same arguments keep popping up again and again. It's as if the belief is actually a pre-determined axiom, and all the evidence and apologetics is just for show. The fix is in; the conclusion already established long before.

Science knows that there is no empirical evidence that there is no designer

STOP IT!
There is no evidence for "no designer." Nobody's looking for or claiming such negative evidence. Such evidence would be useless.
"No designer" is already the existing position.

...and you wonder why I ask that you learn how to think.

unless you want to call the "lack of evidence for a designer", actual evidence that there is no designer.

As you've been told, there neither is nor a need for "no designer" evidence. The slate is already blank.

(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.

Deferred belief is not sitting on the fence. It is an actual, logical position.
I defer belief in Saquatches and flying saucers, too. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying there is thus far insufficient evidence. If such evidence appears, I'll drop the deferral.

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.)

"The history of God?" which god? There are many histories of God. How did you decide yours was the correct one?
"Live as if God existed?" Like the Taliban does?
How is God's preferred lifestyle determined?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Point?

There are no observable laws of nature. They are baseon on the axiomaitc assumption that the universe is orderly, but that is without evidence.
Point being that that is not just religious claims, we should be skeptical about.

 

[Brian2]

Yes.

I suppose that eliminates any spirits, either in or outside of physical bodies.
What brought you to your conclusion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t know about you, but I will keep pressing him on the robot issue, make some popcorn and enjoy the show………..lets see what strategy he uses to avoid a direct and clear answer.


We *know* that robots don’t assemble by themselves because even though metals and the other components of a robot can be formed naturally , there is nothing in the laws of nature that would fold the metals in the correct form and organize each parts in the correct order…………(and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

But we have the exact same issue with life (say self replicating molecules) sure amino acids, sugars, and lipids can be created naturally, but there is nothing in the known laws of nature that would organize everything in the correct order……..( and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

If one insist that there is an “unknown” mechanism that did it, the same can be said about robots.


Also the claim that scientists are “getting closer” to solve the problem on the origin of life is false or at least unsupported.

Well, since we know robots are made by human design, it follows that the universe is made by human design. See, easy. No gods, humans made it all.

 

[Audie]

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

Propaganda sure has worked on you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Propaganda sure has worked on you.

Well, yeah. But in a sense you are in effect stating a feeling as per propaganda is bad. Do you got any evidence for that?

 

[Brian2]

That seems to be correct from what I have learned. Somehow, however 'abiogenesis' happened, scientists say life therefore came about from non-life according to the theory, and things (cells) from that point on multiplied and evolved, becoming plants, animals, etc.

Well I suppose we can deal with abiogenesis when someone does actually make living things from chemicals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are no observable laws of nature. They are baseon on the axiomaitc assumption that the universe is orderly, but that is without evidence.

That is not what the quote says.
It says it is without proof.
It is not without evidence.

It is an axiomatic assumption, yes. But it is a warranted assumption as is evidenced by its continued success in yielding useful results.

Your quote does not support your radical claims.

Point being that that is not just religious claims, we should be skeptical about.

Skepticism is central in a scientific narrative.
You're back to stating the obvious and pretending you are making some kind of point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I suppose that eliminates any spirits, either in or outside of physical bodies.
What brought you to your conclusion?

The same type of stuff that brought us to the conclusion that there's no reason to contemplate the involvement of undetectable graviton pixies in the workings of gravity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I suppose we can deal with abiogenesis when someone does actually make living things from chemicals.

Once there was no life and then later there was.
So by necessity, life came about at some point where there was no life prior to that.
That is called abiogenesis. Life from non-life.

Abiogenesis thus factually occurred one way or the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science does not report that life is chemically based.

Except that it does, off course.
It's bio-chemistry. Carbon based.

So called educated people who are atheists seem to want to go with the idea that science has not found "spirit" so life must be chemically based.

This is, off course, false.
First, it has nothing to do with atheism.
Second, it has nothing to do with "not finding spirits" (or undetectable life-giving pixies or whatever else your imagination can come up with).

It has 100% to do with studying the workings and processes of life and only seeing (bio)chemistry happening.

But these same people know they are wrong scientifically and that they just have faith that this is the situation

No faith required when you have empirical evidence.
Show me a fundamental process of life that isn't ultimately based in chemistry.

DNA itself is a molecule. The processes of the cell are all biochemical processes.
In light of all this evidence, why would it be wrong to say that life = bio-chemistry?

,,,,,,,,,,, and at the same time they attack others for their belief in a designer.

You say "attack", but off course it is just "pointing out that it is without evidence"

It is such a curiosity.

Not for someone who is intellectually honest about it.

That sounds like you believe what takes your fancy

????

Errrr.... no. It means the exact opposite

It means that he will only believe those things that can be sufficiently supported with actual verifiable evidence - regardless if he "fancies" the claims or not.
What a weird thing to reply to what he actually said....

, but can't see that a designer is more likely true than not.

If a designer is more likely true then not, then show how.
Just claiming it doesn't make it likely. Let alone more likely then not.

 

[Brian2]

False, amino acids that make up DNA strands are chemicals. You need to get science right if you want to be taken seriously.

Since science does not say that a living spirit God does not exist, that means that science does not say that chemicals are the basis of life.
If however you are talking about biological life, the word "biological" does tells us that chemicals are involved.

This is the Dunning Kruger Effect right here. Look at your contempt for science, and in expertise of very complicated subjects that you have no knowledge about. And many experts in science are theists, they just get science right, unlike you.

We are talking about different things, as I said. Biological life has chemicals and for abiogenesis, these chemicals need to be able to form bodies fairly easily. This does not mean that chemicals are the basis of what life it. Scientists disagree on how to define "life" but I bet they are talking about "biological organisms" and not about what "life" actually is. IOW can chemicals only become a living organism or is there something else also which is needed.

The only curosity is why you insult scientists like this. Is your religious faith so weak?

Look at what I am replying to in post 1213

• #1,213

and you might notice that I am replying to your insult to theists/creationists and that I am not insulting scientists, but am tongue in cheek insulting atheists.
And also remember that when I say "life" I am meaning the thing that animates chemicals and makes them alive. When you say "life" you seem to mean "biological organisms".

What designer? Notice you'd rather insult educated people than show us evidence of a designer existing outside of human imagination. Is there a problem? No evidence?

You have no interest in the evidence I have to offer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All that physical machination IS the “evidence”. It logically cannot have just randomly popped into being from nothingness.

Ha, so it's just based on some strawman then?

t is organized and purposeful and extremely complex.

Complexity is not an argument for design.
I can point you to extremely complex things that aren't designed by intelligent agents (like hurricanes) and I can point you to extremely simple things that are designed by intelligent agents (like a spear, which is just a stick with a sharpened point).

So complexity is not an indicator of design at all.

Next, natural process "organize" things ALL THE TIME. Take a bunch of iron dust material and throw it chaotically into a magnetic field and it will "organize" itself automagically, to give just one simple example. Or another example is how gravity will take a chaotic cloud of matter and turn it into an organized solar system with a star in the middle and nice spherical planets in stable orbits around it. Nature is FULL of examples of natural processes creating "organization" from essentially chaos.

As for "purposeful", that is a subjective judgement call which more often then not is misleading as it is a word that carries baggage which, in this context, is more often then not completely unwarranted.

Say a sharp rock sticks out of a cliff. A cat could use said rock to rub against it to scratch itself in places its paws can't reach. This would give the sharp rock the "function" of some type of scratching pole. But that would not be its "purpose". To say that that is its "purpose" would imply that this sharp rock was put there "purposefully" with the pre-planned intention to serve as a scratch pole for cats.

Plenty of such examples in nature. Take mountains. They have tremendous influence on climate in the valleys between them. Depending on their location, they could for example be instrumental in creating a climate in the valley that turns said valley into a paradise for life. The mountains within that system would then take on the "function" as barrier for certain types of winds or as the providers of water etc. But that would not be their pre-planned "purpose". It would merely be their "function" simply due to "being there".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@F1fan
Well, it is the believers in natural laws, who have the problem, because there is a version of science, where there are no objective natural lwas. Rather it is an axiomatic assumption, but not a fact.

Maybe take you "axiomatic assumption" and be skeptical about how you will not plummet to your death when jumping from the Empire State building.
Because it's "just an assumption" that gravity will always work as described in the law of gravity, right? It's not a "fact", right?

It's something that you need to be, or can rationally be, "skeptical" about, right?
The uniformity of nature and the existence of natural laws are "just assumptions", right?
So just because gravity was always observed to work like this and therefor described to work like this in natural law, doesn't mean it's a fact, right?

So you can rationally be "skeptical" about this, correct?

So will you jump from the Empire State building?
Would you say that it is "not a fact" that that would end badly?
Would you say that it is "just an assumption" that that would end badly?


Hilariously, technically you are correct that at bottom, ultimately, it is "just an assumption".

But I think it hilariously demonstrate the ridiculousness of the point you think you are making here.

 

[Brian2]

No. Science believes life is chemically based because the hypothesis is adequate to explain our observations, and our observations of life uncover nothing but chemistry. Moreover, no other evidenced or testable hypothesis is known.

Science's limitations means that science can study only physical/material reality. When it is studying life forms, it is studying chemicals and it defines life in physical terms. When I talk about "life" I am talking about what animates chemicals to make them alive.
Science's lack of evidence for "spirit" does not prove that spirit (the animating principle) does not exist unless science uses the argument from ignorance.

Huh? Scientists have faith?! The scientific method is specifically designed to eliminate faith; to disprove any hypothesis that does not stand up to scrutiny.
I think you're projecting your own thought processes to a discipline you don't understand.
Attack others? Why bother? If their hypotheses are insubstantial there's no reason to attack them. We just point out the fact that they are unfounded, and won't stand up on their own.

F1fan was just attacking me for this, but the truth is that I am not attacking the scientists but am attacking atheists who seem to have faith based beliefs about "life" but attack theist for having faith based beliefs.
Put my comments in context and try to understand that whole argument instead of breaking my posts up into a 100 little bits, each out of context. I find this to be a common problem when speaking to atheists. Maybe it is not on purpose, but it happens a lot.

The designer hypotheses is entirely unfounded. There is no evidence supporting it, nor any need for design to fill any gaps.

So are you saying that you will defer belief in a designer until there is evidence or are you saying that you have rejected the designer idea and believe there is no designer? Your words imply the latter.
I agree that there is no scientific evidence supporting a designer.

There is other evidence in the world supporting a designer however but if you have gone down the road of empirical evidence only in you search for Gods then you have pretty much gone down a path where you are unlikely to find Gods who cannot be found or tested by science.

And really, scientifically it cannot be said that a designer/creator is not needed.