How do you detect "design"?

[blü 2]

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.

Let's lay out some basics we might be able to agree on.

I start with three assumptions / axioms, as I've likely mentioned to you before ─

that a world exists external to me
that my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and
that reason is a valid tool.

(They have in common that none of them can be demonstrated to be correct without first assuming they're already correct.)

Do you accept those axioms? Do you wish to add any of your own?

 

[Pogo]

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.

The problem then is then in the person who extrapolates the simple to the "in effect" idea of ontological idealism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's lay out some basics we might be able to agree on.

I start with three assumptions / axioms, as I've likely mentioned to you before ─

that a world exists external to me
that my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and
that reason is a valid tool.

(They have in common that none of them can be demonstrated to be correct without first assuming they're already correct.)

Do you accept those axioms? Do you wish to add any of your own?

So if we brain scanned you, you would have no emotional non-reason parts of the brain and you only use external sensation and rational cognition?
Is that your claim?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem then is then in the person who extrapolates the simple to the "in effect" idea of ontological idealism.

Well, if you can tell the objective observable physical properties of the word problem, I will listen to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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​

Try making the point in your own words and using clips only as a reference.
Don't try and make me hunt in a video for the point you think you are making.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Try responding to the posts in a sensible manner.
As it stands, there is nothing there to reply to in a meaningful way as you didn't address a single point raised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, please explan the observable properties of usefull.

Science: it works.

If you build a plane using science, the plane flies.
Ergo, science is useful to get stuff done.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It is a subset of we lack any belief about the existence of designers.
We don't believe in no designers.
We don't believe in yes designers.
Heck we don't believe in maybe designers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

And some people's brains are so cluttered up in misrepresentations and strawmen, like the bolded part, that all they can do is spout nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Try responding to the posts in a sensible manner.
As it stands, there is nothing there to reply to in a meaningful way as you didn't address a single point raised.

Those are subjective and that is the point for at least 2 factors regarding natural science.
-You can't understand the subjective using only natural science.
-You can't do the subjective using only natural science.

Now in effect that means that the idea of objective reality is not all of the universe. The same goes for physical and so on. Or even rational.

So yes, science is subjectively useful, but that is the point. It is subjective that it is useful.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is true, to say "We don't believe there is no designer" is essentially saying we believe there IS a designer.

That is actually not the case at all.

Why is it that this seems so complicated to understand?

2 claims can be made:
- There is a designer
- There is no designer.

The only mutually exclusive answer to these claims is belief. You can't believe both.
But you CAN disbelief both.

To believe = to accept as true.
Not believing a claim does NOT mean you automagically believe the opposite claim.

Again I will point you to the court room analogy.
A defendant is either guilty or innocent. But only the claim of guilt is discussed.
When the jury find the defendant NOT guilty, what they say is that they don't believe the claim "he is guilty". That does NOT mean they believe he is innocent.
It merely means that they feel like the case hasn't been sufficiently made to believe the claim of guilt.

Take the gumball machine analogy as a second example.
The amount of gumballs in the machine is either even or uneven.
Let's say you don't know how many are in there and you are unable to count them.
A guy claims "there is an even amount of gumballs in the machine". Do you believe the claim? Which is to say, do you accept that as a true-ism?
If you say no, you don't accept the claim as a true-ism, does that then automatically mean that you WILL believe the claim that it is uneven?

Off course not.


So... in summary: NO, saying you don't believe there is "no" designer, does not mean automatically or imply that you DO believe that 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.

I've been wondering the same about you for years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Those are subjective and that is the point for at least 2 factors regarding natural science.
-You can't understand the subjective using only natural science.
-You can't do the subjective using only natural science.

Now in effect that means that the idea of objective reality is not all of the universe. The same goes for physical and so on. Or even rational.

Trying to decipher your ramblings has nothing to do with natural science.

So yes, science is subjectively useful, but that is the point. It is subjective that it is useful.

No, it is objectively useful.

Again: planes fly when you use science to build them. Factually.
They don't when you don't. Factually.

This is not a matter of "opinion".

 

[Subduction Zone]

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




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

What am I saying about water?

As has been pointed out you ignored some rather basic grammar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Riddle me this...

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

What am I saying about water?

Surely you can answer that.(doubt you will though)

It would have been clearer if he put the phrase in quotes, but it is still there. Others can see it, only you miss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

What does water have to do with this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

What am I saying about water?

That you don't commit to the claim that there is no water, as being true.
That you think the claim "there is no water" has not been sufficiently demonstrated / supported to accept it as true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Trying to decipher your ramblings has nothing to do with natural science.


No, it is objectively useful.

Again: planes fly when you use science to build them. Factually.
They don't when you don't. Factually.

This is not a matter of "opinion".

Please explain the external sensation properties of useful?
What do you see?
What do you hear?
What do you smell?
What do you taste?
What do you feel as per touch?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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'

No.

Those two statements are compatible.
They are not equal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please explain the external sensation properties of useful?
What do you see?
What do you hear?
What do you smell?
What do you taste?
What do you feel as per touch?

You are not making sense.

It's like asking "what does purple taste like?"

Science is a method of inquiry. As a method it is useful because it yields results.
A method that doesn't yield accurate / working results would not be useful.

A hammer is useful to drive a nail trough a piece of wood.
A hammer is not useful to brush my teeth.

I don't know what else to tell you.
Your mind works in very mysterious ways

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are not making sense.

It's like asking "what does purple taste like?"

Science is a method of inquiry. As a method it is useful because it yields results.
A method that doesn't yield accurate / working results would not be useful.

A hammer is useful to drive a nail trough a piece of wood.
A hammer is not useful to brush my teeth.


Your mind works in very mysterious ways

"Would" is a subjective judgment.
Useful is always subjectively useful to somebody as per your examples.
I.e. A hammer is useful to drive a nail trough a piece of wood, if you want that result. If you don't want that, then it is not useful.