How do you detect "design"?

[PureX]

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

Well that one is clearly wrong, as you and the world are only separated by ideation. In reality we are all one phenomena, including even the ideation.

that my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and

"Informing" is a very vague term in this context.

Everything in the world is interconnected because the world is a holistic singular phenomenal event. Our senses are a means of awareness of our connection within it. They "inform" us of the fact that the world and we are the same phenomena occurring. Yet that awareness creates the illusion that we are apart from the world, observing it. It's a paradox for us.

Perception is conception. Until we understand this, we understand nothing.

that reason is a valid tool.

And yet it reveals so little to us. It helps us survive, but it can't tell us why.

(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?

We don't really know anything. We just pretend we do. That's the only axiom I can see.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Nothing, it is a statement about one's beliefs.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Nothing, it is a statement about one's beliefs.

 

[PureX]

Nothing, it is a statement about one's beliefs.

Why would anyone care what you believe about water? Why even would you care?

Believing is what we do when we don't know something but we want to pretend that we do know. Of what value is that to anyone but you? Ultimately, what value is it even to you?

So why defend this belief nonsense?

 

[McBell]

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


That's a composition fallacy.

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

Cheers.

You claimed you can provide the math.
You did not provide the math.

Which makes it a bold empty claim that be dismissed for complete lack of evidence.

Just like everyone else on RF who claimed they can/will show the math.

So not subjectivity involved at all.

Care to try again?
Or perhaps you will show the math you claimed you can show?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Another handwave. Rather than preaching brother like a street preacher, why not engage with the data?

At least, answer this simple question. At least. If not of course the engagement could end. No worries. For the third time;

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis? Why not directly answer the question?

This was in response to, "You can't determine a probability without information and then deciding on the nature of this already assumed designer is even less rational."


This is a valid point that needs addressing. Calculating probabilities require actual numbers to plug into equations.

 

[Pogo]

Why would anyone care what you believe about water? Why even would you care?

Believing is what we do when we don't know something but we want to pretend that we do know. Of what value is that to anyone but you? Ultimately, what value is it even to you?

So why defend this belief nonsense?

Because words can have different meanings to different people and in different contexts.
Mutuall understanding of these symbols and what they represent is fundamental to communication.

 

[Pogo]

Another handwave. Rather than preaching brother like a street preacher, why not engage with the data?

At least, answer this simple question. At least. If not of course the engagement could end. No worries. For the third time;

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis? Why not directly answer the question?

Physics, etc. tells us the universe was too hot for life as we know it and even for atoms as we know them. later the earth was too hot and thus there was no life, there is now biological life where there formerly was not.
Thus at least one event of abiogenesis has occurred.

The current studies are just to figure out how it happened, not whether it happened.

 

[PureX]

Because words can have different meanings to different people and in different contexts.
Mutuall understanding of these symbols and what they represent is fundamental to communication.

I don't see you seeking any "mutual understanding", here. All I see is you trying everything in your nominal intellectual power to dismiss any form of theism as silly, superstitious, foolishness. You've been trying to assert that there is no evidence or proof of intelligent design when in fact we are surrounded by and are ourselves the product design that is so complex and precise that we humans can only barely comprehend it. Yet you continue to try and assert that this somehow just occurred purely by happenstance because you can't accept ANY possibility that it could have been the deliberate intention of some form of meta-existential being that is beyond any form of being that we can imagine. When in fact this it not only a viable conceptual possibility, it is the more logical one compared to the idea of some spontaneous accident occurring from and within abject nothingness, even though the idea of some transcendent form or realm of being remains an unsearchable mystery.

Communication involves listening. And consideration. Not immediate dismissal by any means you can muster.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

That is not a bunny. Here is a clearer image:

 

[McBell]

That is not a bunny. Here is a clearer image:

View attachment 92310

I do not see either of those.
I see a gorilla...

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not a bunny. Here is a clearer image:

View attachment 92310

And if you're me you see a gorilla exhaling smoke.

 

[McBell]

And if you're me you see a gorilla exhaling smoke.

There is not enough context/detail for me to determine if it is smoke, or vape, or just a cold day.

 

[Pogo]

You've been trying to assert that there is no evidence or proof of intelligent design when in fact we are surrounded by and are ourselves the product design that is so complex and precise that we humans can only barely comprehend it.

This is assuming your conclusion based on an argument from ignorance. We must be products of an unknown and unevidenced super complex designer because we do not know how it happened. This is not a valid argument, but a belief of yours without evidence beyond equivocation of a known process of a known intelligence with an unknown.

There are lots of theists out there who understand the fallacy of your argument. It is not that they don't believe in a god, they do but they understand that saying I don't know or it's complex is not evidence for their belief.

Your argument also suffers from infinite regress or Turtles all the way down.
If complexity requires a designer, then who or what designed the designer ad infinitum.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress. The saying alludes to the mythological idea of a World Turtle that supports a flat Earth on its back. It suggests that this turtle rests on the back of an even larger turtle, which itself is part of a column of increasingly larger turtles that continues indefinitely."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not see either of those.
I see a gorilla...

And if you're me you see a gorilla exhaling smoke.

Oh oh!! Both of you might be in dire need of psychiatric care. It is clearly a chicken laying an egg!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh oh!! Both of you might be in dire need of psychiatric care.

Or I need to stop exhaling smoke myself.

It is clearly a chicken laying an egg!

Do I have to turn it upside down or something?

 

[McBell]

Do I have to turn it upside down or something?

Maybe we need special glasses?

 

[Pogo]

There is not enough context/detail for me to determine if it is smoke, or vape, or just a cold day.

Google says it is a brain smoking weed.

 

[McBell]

Google says it is a brain smoking weed.

Weeds that smoke brains?

Now that sounds like some AI stuffs there it does.

 

[McBell]

Both of you might be in dire need of psychiatric care.

I once went to see Dr. Donald.
I had to Duck to into his office.
I have been told he is a Quack