How do you detect "design"?

[firedragon]

I am interested in looking at the material.

Sure. You could start with Carr and Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World.” I am sure you could find it on the internet. Directly relevant to what I said.

 

[McBell]

Sure. You could start with Carr and Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World.” I am sure you could find it on the internet. Directly relevant to what I said.

I am not going to pay $200 to read your linked article.

 

[firedragon]

I am not going to pay $200 to read your linked article.

Hmm. Alright then. Cheers.

 

[YoursTrue]

"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.

That is true, to say "We don't believe there is no designer" is essentially saying we believe there IS a designer. You need to try and follow along. I'm beginning to think (realize or wonder) that some of you do not know what you're reading or saying. Or the possibility exists that you are deliberately misunderstanding what is basically clear and simple English.

 

[McBell]

Hmm. Alright then. Cheers.

Does this mean you have not a single source that is not hidden behind a paywall?

So I guess this means you will not be the first one ever to present the math.
Not that anyone is surprised.

 

[firedragon]

Does this mean you have not a single source that is not hidden behind a paywall?

I don't know. I did not explore that. But you can come to any of your assumptions. Your prerogative.

So I guess this means you will not be the first one ever to present the math.

That's a composition fallacy.

I guess you are looking to insult your way into your subjective bliss. Up to you mate.

Cheers.

 

[PureX]

Your use of the word design makes it indistinguishable from the functions of natural forces and completely divorced from its common meaning,
A design is the concept of or proposal for an object, process, or system. The word, design, refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, although it is sometimes used to refer to the inherent nature of something – its design. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design. In some cases, the direct construction of an object without an explicit prior plan may also be considered to be a design (such as in arts and crafts). A design is expected to have a purpose within a certain context, usually having to satisfy certain goals and constraints, and to take into account aesthetic, functional, economic, environmental or socio-political considerations. Traditional examples of designs include architectural and engineering drawings, circuit diagrams, sewing patterns, and less tangible artefacts such as business process models.[1][2]

You then use your personal definition to make an invalid argument that there must be a designer because you call something designed without evidence relying now on the common definition.

Your DNA sequencing designed your physical structure. Science knows this. Everyone else knows this, too. And yet here you are trying to deny it so that you can shore up your ignorant argument against any possibility of an intelligent designer.

This is why stupid people are stupid. It's not that they can't learn, it's that they won't learn. Because whenever they encounter an idea that they might have to work a little bit to understand, they just dismiss it, instead, so they won't have to accept the fact of their own ignorance, or do a little intellectual work to learn something new.

 

[PureX]

Ah, yes a Fine Tuna we have here, if the constants were different we wouldn't be here. So.

Those constants ARE the design. They are why everything that exists, exists as it does. Everyone sees this but you.

how did you calculate potential universes? The idea that this implies design is just a possibility with no other information this is just the latest version of Paley's watchmaker.

It doesn't imply design, it IS design. The question is not whether or not existence is the result of design; we can all see that it is. The question is if and/or what is the source and purpose of this design. And none of us knows the answer to that question. Meanwhile, the various possibilities remain.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

V

That is true, to say "We don't believe there is no designer" is essentially saying we believe there IS a designer. You need to try and follow along. I'm beginning to think (realize or wonder) that some of you do not know what you're reading or saying. Or the possibility exists that you are deliberately misunderstanding what is basically clear and simple English.

The Rolling Stones - (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Official Lyric Video)​

 

[We Never Know]

That is true, to say "We don't believe there is no designer" is essentially saying we believe there IS a designer. You need to try and follow along. I'm beginning to think (realize or wonder) that some of you do not know what you're reading or saying. Or the possibility exists that you are deliberately misunderstanding what is basically clear and simple English.

Yet some are so highly edumacated it can't be understood even when its pointed out and explained lol

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The whole "burden of proof" thing is just more 'kangaroo court' nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That answers your question. You could not answer because there is none. And that shows that the probability of randomness for genesis is next nothing. That shows design.

"you don't know, therefor my random religious claim wins by default"


Great argument you got there.

 

[Pogo]

Your DNA sequencing designed your physical structure. Science knows this. Everyone else knows this, too. And yet here you are trying to deny it so that you can shore up your ignorant argument against any possibility of an intelligent designer.

This is why stupid people are stupid. It's not that they can't learn, it's that they won't learn. Because whenever they encounter an idea that they might have to work a little bit to understand, they just dismiss it, instead, so they won't have to accept the fact of their own ignorance, or do a little intellectual work to learn something new.

The problem is your equivocation with a secondary use for the word with the primary meaning. The word is used for things that we perceive as having some sort of a pattern, but the use of the word in that case does not imply the existence of an intelligent designer.
Is this really a Bunny or just something that our brain processes to say it looks like a bunny?

 

[PureX]

Yet some are so highly edumacated it can't be understood even when its pointed out and explained lol

Well, some people's brains are so cluttered up and confused by the whole "believing in their unbelief" gibberish that they just can't think strait anymore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

This doesn't seem to make any sense.

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.

I also can't make any sense of this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, there is no evidence that the results are useful.

Your ability to post here, is an example of such evidence.

If you use science to build a plane, it flies.
It you try to use voodoo to build a plane, it won't.

You really don't understand that useful is not objective and not based on observation.

False. See above.

Planes fly using science.

So just as there is no evidence for gods, there is no evidence for useful.

Again false, see above.
Nukes explode using science.

That is the point, if you want to play the game of evidence. Learn the limit of evidence.

Learn to think things through before spouting nonsense

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is your equivocation with a secondary use for the word with the primary meaning. The word is used for things that we perceive as having some sort of a pattern, but the use of the word in that case does not imply the existence of an intelligent designer.
Is this really a Bunny or just something that our brain processes to say it looks like a bunny?

The problem is that if someone in effect states as with evidence that the universe is orderly/lawfull, then it is a version of ontological idealism in effect. I.e. connected to the non-physical and supernatural in some sense, as the universe has a non-physical property.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

"you don't know, therefor my random religious claim wins by default"


Great argument you got there.

Don’t underestimate the godlike properties of randomness.

Uniqueness is one such godlike property, and this dude managed to fit a proof in a video.

And he did it without uttering either of the words “logic” or “science” even once.

(Frequent use of the words “logic” and “science” as incantations is a big red flag that what is actually being discussed is about neither.)

Kenny Rogers offers some excellent advice for folks engaged in these types of discussions.

This random graph fact will blow your mind | Rado graph and its godlike properties​

Kenny Rogers - The Gambler​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This doesn't seem to make any sense.



I also can't make any sense of this.

Yes, you are subjective in part in some of your answers. That is the point, i.e. you do more than just use natural science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your ability to post here, is an example of such evidence.

If you use science to build a plane, it flies.
It you try to use voodoo to build a plane, it won't.



False. See above.

Planes fly using science.



Again false, see above.
Nukes explode using science.



Learn to think things through before spouting nonsense

Yeah, please explan the observable properties of usefull.