How do you detect "design"?

[Brian2]

No idea what you're going on about, but life is chemically based.

Yes, to have an idea of what I am on about you need to look at the context.
And yes "living organisms" are made of chemicals, but that does not mean that "life" the thing that animates the chemicals, is chemicals.

If you want to claim the body is composed of "spirit" you'll first have to define it, and then somehow demonstrate that it resides within the human body somewhere. You don't just get to claim "spirits" until somebody proves it wrong. Until you can show it's a possibility at all, there's no actual reason for anyone to consider it.

Yes, science cannot find or analyse spirit, but that is no reason to say that there is no spirit. It can remain out of science but science does not claim that spirit does not exist, that is what atheists claim isn't it?

I don't understand how you still don't understand the burden of proof at this point.

You need to show that a designer is "more likely true than not," rather than just assume it. If you can't show it, then there's no reason to consider it in the first place.

I don't want to prove spirit or gods with a tool (science) that can only find and test material things. Does that mean that spirit things do not exist?

 

[We Never Know]

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.

Its a double negative construction. 'We dont believe there is no designer = We believe there is a designer.

Same as 'We don't believe there is no money = we believe there is money'

So.... You are saying we believe in a designer.

Logic? lol. Your comedy show is hilarious.


Edit....07:45

Now that I have eaten breakfast....don't take my word for it, maybe this will help your logic lol

 

[Brian2]

How does showing a hypothesis false make it true?
I suspect a typo..?

Sorry, your misunderstanding.

Is that the bar you have set?
That what you believe is true until it is shown to be wrong?
You do know the exact same argument works just effectively for any and all imaginary things, right?

Sure, science does not tell us that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, but we believe that the FSM does not exist anyway,,,,,,,,,,,, just as you believe that gods do not exist because you reject evidence for them Even I reject the evidence for most of them and believe they do not exist.

If the best you got for the existence of gods is "you can't prove they do not exist" you do not have much.

I never said I had much, just the truth, that there is evidence for the existence of one God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes there are what we call the natural laws, wherever they came from.

I am going to have to break this up a lot because there are so many errors in your post. Why assume that they "came from" anywhere? Sometimes one's ability to reason is affected by the terms that one uses. It is better to ask why the values have those values.

Science cannot say where they came from but humans either believe they come from a creator or not.

No, this is a false dichotomy. It is also possible to withhold judgment until the evidence is in. One just needs to be honest and admit that no one can seem to come up with any evidence for a creator.

Sometimes this belief or lack thereof is determined by a preconceived worldview.

Yes, this is true, but what one has to do is to try to minimize preconceived conclusions based on one's worldview if one wants to be rational or if one wants to know as many true things as possible.

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.

I have to stop you again. I do not know of any historical evidence for the supernatural and in fact since religious and supernatural beliefs are so contradicting depending upon one's religion and because there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for any of them that historians do not include the supernatural in history You might mean "biblical" but the Bible is not historical.

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.

That is actually true. And that is because there does not appear to be anything else besides the natural. Believers cannot seem to understand that the burden of proof for them is on them. The logical and rational way to treat unsupported claims is to the supernatural as nonexistent until it is properly supported.

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.

That is a false claim. No one is going down a science only road. There are other areas that are valid too. History for example. Ethics is another. Science just answers questions about the physical world that we live in. If you think that there is a non-physical road you need something on the order of the scientific method to show that it exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.


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

Yeah, there is no evidence that the results are useful. You really don't understand that useful is not objective and not based on observation.
So just as there is no evidence for gods, there is no evidence for useful.
That is the point, if you want to play the game of evidence. Learn the limit of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its a double negative construction. 'We dont believe there in no designer = We believe there is a designer.

Same as 'We don't believe there is no money = we believe there is money'

So.... You are saying we believe in a designer.

Logic? lol. Your comedy show is hilarious.

Wow, You can do better than this.

You are trying to force others to rush to judgment. Often in many matters the correct thing to do is to withhold judgment until evidence is presented.

Let's take your money example. An average looking guy driving a bit of a clunker could claim to be a multi-millionaire and he is coming back tomorrow to give you a huge check for a charity that you are working for. It is best not to believe him. In other words, I would not go out of my way to help or give money to a person that made such claims. But on the other hand rushing to judgment can be very bad. If I declared "You have no money, you are a poor bum" he just might come back tomorrow and show that I was wrong. Even worse I could be like a creationist and even after the person proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had money and wanted to give it to me and refuse the money that he offers the charity I am working for I could end up harming the charity that I work for.

Most atheists lack a belief in a god or gods. Show us reliable evidence to the contrary and we will change our minds. A lack of belief is a far more flexible approach to the unknown rather than making an unsupported claim either way. You may want atheists to say "There is no God" because that would put the burden of proof upon us. And we can see that there is no such proof so that is also as bad of a claim to make as "there is a God".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, all of the universe is that example, right?
I have no problem with a part of the universe being objective as for how it makes sense to me.
So now I am going to say that all of the universe is not your example and now I am dead. In fact I haven't even written this as I am dead.

As for badly, that is without evidence. This is the 2nd post of yours where you use examples containing feelings without evidence.
Now I want to die and had an option like your example, it woudl end good. You are so subjective at times. So am I, I just try to be honest when I am subjective and not doing natural sceince.

 

[We Never Know]

Wow, You can do better than this.

You are trying to force others to rush to judgment. Often in many matters the correct thing to do is to withhold judgment until evidence is presented.

Let's take your money example. An average looking guy driving a bit of a clunker could claim to be a multi-millionaire and he is coming back tomorrow to give you a huge check for a charity that you are working for. It is best not to believe him. In other words, I would not go out of my way to help or give money to a person that made such claims. But on the other hand rushing to judgment can be very bad. If I declared "You have no money, you are a poor bum" he just might come back tomorrow and show that I was wrong. Even worse I could be like a creationist and even after the person proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had money and wanted to give it to me and refuse the money that he offers the charity I am working for I could end up harming the charity that I work for.

Most atheists lack a belief in a god or gods. Show us reliable evidence to the contrary and we will change our minds. A lack of belief is a far more flexible approach to the unknown rather than making an unsupported claim either way. You may want atheists to say "There is no God" because that would put the burden of proof upon us. And we can see that there is no such proof so that is also as bad of a claim to make as "there is a God".

Your bias is showing lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your bias is showing lol

View attachment 92285

No, your strawman is showing.

 

[Kfox]

A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.

Yet whenever creationist or "design proponents" bring this up, it seems to me that they are either very vague about it or their methodology of "detecting design" seems to be no more then fallacious argumentst from ignorance ("I don't know how it can be natural, so therefor it isn't"), arguments from incredulity ("I don't believe it's natural, therefor it isn't") or various species or combinations thereof.

I would say that in a nutshell, we detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing or use of artificial materials.
This implies that we have to understand manufacturing processes and what signs / traces they tend to leave.
It also implies that we have to understand the difference between naturally occuring materials and artificial materials.

This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.

This also means that if a designer sets out to mimic natural processes and materials while doing a perfect job, we would not be able to tell the artificial object from the natural object.

For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.


So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.

So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.

I think most people detect design by knowing the work of the designer. The only reason we know a dollar bill is designed, and a leaf is natural is because we are aware of the types of designs mankind create to be used as money.

 

[We Never Know]

No, your strawman is showing.

Double negative sentence construction is grade school stuff.

 

[McBell]

I never said I had much, just the truth, that there is evidence for the existence of one God.

Then why not simply present your evidence for the existence of the one God?
Why all this dancing around there being no evidence for its non-existence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Double negative sentence construction is grade school stuff.

You were the only one that used a double negative. That is why your argument is a strawman.

 

[We Never Know]

You were the only one that used a double negative. That is why your argument is a strawman.

Wow! I believe ignorant is you favorite choice of words. It fits here. Lol

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?

If I say "we don't believe there is no water"

What am I saying about water?

 

[McBell]

Its a double negative construction. 'We dont believe there in no designer = We believe there is a designer.

Same as 'We don't believe there is no money = we believe there is money'

So.... You are saying we believe in a designer.

Logic? lol. Your comedy show is hilarious.


Edit....07:45

Now that I have eaten breakfast....don't take my word for it, maybe this will help your logic lol

View attachment 92284

Your ignoring two dependent terms in order to push your "grade school stuff" narrative is most comical.

 

[We Never Know]

Your ignoring two dependent terms in order to push your "grade school stuff" narrative is most comical.

It is what it is. But its also explains quite a bit.

 

[McBell]

It is what it is. But its also explains quite a bit.

It merely reveals a desperation to throw out a 'gotcha'.
In this case it backfired.

 

[F1fan]

My belief in the existence of unicorns is a result of my faith in the capabilities of science.

No doubt your belief in the existence of unicorns is zero.

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?

Until then those old school buses wll have to do. At least we could paint them pink and put glitter on them.

 

[F1fan]

I suppose that eliminates any spirits, either in or outside of physical bodies.

If you are talking about whiskey, no. If you are talking about imagined invisible beings common in religious lore, yes. One of those is confirmed as existing, and the other isn't.

What brought you to your conclusion?

You are asking how critical thinkers process ideas, yet it's been explained to you by numerous people and you either refuse to learn, or are incapable of learning. Reason follows evidence, and avoids assumptions. Your religious ideas lack evidence, and this is why no rational mind can conclude they exist. You're free to assume religious ideas are true, but why?

 

[firedragon]

I don't lie ... I am a believer, not an evolutionist.

Just curious k. Do you reject evolution as a whole or only the darwinian theory?