How do you detect "design"?

[Brian2]

Presumably you'd go on a date with some girl
who showed enough interest in you to ask you a question
about yourself.

Your response would be to ask her something wholly
irrelevant, showing you didn't hear a word she said and /
or have no intention of answering, nor showing the least
respect for her.

The probable response would be to give you a brief
look, then walk out.

Do you think that an atheist has no choice but to believe that life is chemically based?

 

[Brian2]

Until there is something offered up to explain how life began that is not merely wishful thinking, no, not scientism at all.

So your belief that life is chemically based would be based on the part of the data that science is able to study, while ignoring anything else.

 

[McBell]

So your belief that life is chemically based would be based on the part of the data that science is able to study, while ignoring anything else.

Do you have something else that is not merely wishful thinking?

 

[Brian2]

No. A hypothesis is a clear and detailed testable model, which itself is already based and supported by some evidence (actual POSITIVE evidence FOR the idea... not mere ignorant negative "evidence" against some different idea)
Not some bare faith based claim that is based on nothing but ignorance and an argument from the gaps.

Is there a hypothesis that says that there is no design in the universe?
If so, is it based and supported by some evidence (not merely ignorant negative "evidwence" against some different idea)

 

[Brian2]

No. That's shifting the burden of proof. The one proposing the hypothesis must also make a case for why he believes that it is fact. If he does that, then THAT is what others attempt to falsify, not the original bare claim.

No again. That the ignorantium fallacy stated as succinctly as I've ever seen it.

Not being able to show that the universe was not designed, seems to mean that you are relying on it not being falsified so that you can claim it is true. That being said, it is as much the ignorantium fallacy as believing in a designer.

 

[Brian2]

Is it? When have you demonstrated a "designer" to being an actual possibility?
Just claiming it is a possibility isn't enough.

When have you demonstrated that no designer is needed?

Also, since you seem to think that bare claims are valid "possibilities", how did you conclude that there are just 2 possibilities? If bare claims count as possibilities, I'ld rather say that the actual amount of possibilities is potentially infinite....

You can count them with me if you want.
1--the universe was designed by an intelligence.
2--the universe was not designed by an intelligence.

Some people might state it a different way,,,,,,,,, that design in the universe is so obvious that the question is whether it designed itself or was designed.

We are saying that your claim is meaningless and that for something to be regarded as an actual possibility, it needs to be demonstrated as an actual possibility.
Just claiming it will not cut it.

Yes OK, that is what I say about your claim that there is no designer.

Yes and it is not allowed to just make stuff up and declare it to be valid "just because". Like you are doing.
This is a strength of science, not a weakness...

Science does not make up the idea that there is or that there is not a designer even if theists and atheists do that.
Science has that strength,,,,,,,,,,,,, but also has weaknesses.

Only because there is nothing there to study.............

Yes, science does not know how to recognise whether something has been designed or not.

Nobody is saying that and you have been informed of that multiple times already.
But alas................

And that is your dishonesty when you claim that God is a fiction and then claim that you do not believe that. You contradict yourself.

 

[Brian2]

No. People have claimed to have interacted with god(s) for thousands of years.

Your disbelief of any of that, does not mean that gods are not true.

 

[Audie]

Do you think that an atheist has no choice but to believe that life is chemically based?

Leaves you with two untouched meals to
pay for.
Enjoy your stay in ig city.

 

[F1fan]

To go from a definition of amino acids to a belief that life is chemically based would require a belief in scientism imo. Is that correct?

Why do you creationists work so hard to not learn science? Somewhere in your past someone told you false things about the origins of life, and you believed them without knowing you were being duped. And now that you are interacting with educated people you refuse to understand what science reports. It's such a curiosity that I don't get.

Your disbelief of any of that, does not mean that gods are not true.

What gods are true? Show us the evidence. If you have none, then the broad idea of gods are rejected by logical default. Rational minds will only believe in ideas that have some amount of evidence, and is more likely true than not.

 

[F1fan]

Is there a hypothesis that says that there is no design in the universe?

The "design" we observe is called order. It is how the material of the universe behaves according to the natural laws. Nothiong suggests that how matter behaves needs any supernatural causes. You creationists surely offer no evidence, so why would we agree with your religious beliefs?

If so, is it based and supported by some evidence (not merely ignorant negative "evidwence" against some different idea)

What evidence do you have of gods, a supernatural, some necessity of anything that isn't natural? If you can't offer anything then we have no choice but to reject your magic.

 

[F1fan]

When have you demonstrated that no designer is needed?

Can you point to anything that requires a designer?

Feel free to explain how humans were designed. Be sure to include why defects and cancers were part of this design, especially in children and young mothers.

Yes OK, that is what I say about your claim that there is no designer.

We reject the clain of a designer because you creationists can't show us that any exist. Nor can you show us where any designed is needed in how matter organizes itself via the natural laws.

Science does not make up the idea that there is or that there is not a designer even if theists and atheists do that.
Science has that strength,,,,,,,,,,,,, but also has weaknesses.

Theists have no way to counter what science reports. All creationists have is protest and demands that rational minds prove Gods don;t exist. Why can't you believers prove your God DOES exist? What's the problem?

Yes, science does not know how to recognise whether something has been designed or not.

Science describes the order that matter organizes itself into. Creationists can't show that any supernatural exists, or is necessary.

And that is your dishonesty when you claim that God is a fiction and then claim that you do not believe that. You contradict yourself.

How is your God not a fiction? Until you can show it actually exists, or even likely exists, we won't just take your word for it. Rational minds require evidence, where is it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you point to anything that requires a designer?

Feel free to explain how humans were designed. Be sure to include why defects and cancers were part of this design, especially in children and young mothers.

We reject the clain of a designer because you creationists can't show us that any exist. Nor can you show us where any designed is needed in how matter organizes itself via the natural laws.

Theists have no way to counter what science reports. All creationists have is protest and demands that rational minds prove Gods don;t exist. Why can't you believers prove your God DOES exist? What's the problem?

Science describes the order that matter organizes itself into. Creationists can't show that any supernatural exists, or is necessary.

How is your God not a fiction? Until you can show it actually exists, or even likely exists, we won't just take your word for it. Rational minds require evidence, where is it?

Well, here is another version of science and yes @TagliatelliMonster I am break my promise, but I don't care:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As relevant:
"
That Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[60]
Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[66] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[67] "The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. (Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way "prove" the validity of induction — an endeavor virtually abandoned after Hume demonstrated its futility two centuries ago)."[68] Gould also notes that natural processes such as Lyell's "uniformity of process" are an assumption: "As such, it is another a priori assumption shared by all scientists and not a statement about the empirical world."[69] According to R. Hooykaas: "The principle of uniformity is not a law, not a rule established after comparison of facts, but a principle, preceding the observation of facts ... It is the logical principle of parsimony of causes and of economy of scientific notions. By explaining past changes by analogy with present phenomena, a limit is set to conjecture, for there is only one way in which two things are equal, but there are an infinity of ways in which they could be supposed different."[70] "

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To go from a definition of amino acids to a belief that life is chemically based would require a belief in scientism imo. Is that correct?

We can disregard the definition of an amino acid and begin with the observation that life is chemistry. I'm surprised if you disagree. Look at a living cell. All one sees are chemicals. Some form barriers, some encode instructions, some catalyze reactions, and some are metabolized. What else are you imagining is in there? A soul?

Do you think that an atheist has no choice but to believe that life is chemically based?

Every informed person believes that.

Is there a hypothesis that says that there is no design in the universe?

If there wasn't before, there is now.

Not being able to show that the universe was not designed, seems to mean that you are relying on it not being falsified so that you can claim it is true.

I don't claim that the universe wasn't designed. I also don't claim that it was. That's a statement of agnosticism on the matter.

Science has that strength,,,,,,,,,,,,, but also has weaknesses.

Empiricism, which includes formal science, has limitations, but no other method generates knowledge. If a question can't be answered empirically, it can't be answered. I'm not including unfalsifiable claims as answers.

that is what I say about your claim that there is no designer.

I haven't seen that claim here. What I do see frequently is the claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe that a designer was involved morphed into what you just wrote - a positive claim that there was no designer.

Your disbelief of any of that, does not mean that gods are not true.

Correct, but so what? It also doesn't mean that there aren't vampires. Merely being possible isn't generally interesting. Being actual is. Being likely is, too.

 

[firedragon]

What you call a natural process seems to assume that it was not designed, but you cannot know that.

Absolutely very well said. You nailed it. I am not even sure how much depth your simple statement could go in epistemology and a lot of natural theology and philosophy of I don't know man, many topics. I wouldn't know where to start or/and where to end.

I would love you to think about your own statement deep, and read up on the same subject.

I shall stop now. I just hope your statement will receive just responses.

 

[F1fan]

Absolutely very well said. You nailed it. I am not even sure how much depth your simple statement could go in epistemology and a lot of natural theology and philosophy of I don't know man, many topics. I wouldn't know where to start or/and where to end.

I would love you to think about your own statement deep, and read up on the same subject.

I shall stop now. I just hope your statement will receive just responses.

Since @Brian2 has no answer, perhaps you can offer clear evidence of any designers that exist outside of the natural laws. If not, then your excitement here is unjustified.

 

[Valjean]

Curious I have a different impression.

It seems to me that no matter how big and difficult an obstacle is, you will always say “nature did it” ……. You will always appeal to “unknown natural mechanisms”………….. there doesn’t seem to be a hypothetical point where you would stop and say “hey maybe this is better explained with ID”


If life is just an emergent property of chemistry, why don’t we see life emerging from chemicals?

Challenge

1 take all the amino acids sugars and lipids that you what

2 simulate any environment (assume any temperature, any pressure, any source of energy etc… that you what)

3 given 1 and 2 make a self replicating molecule…………..the only condition is that you can´t use preexisting life to do that.

Can you do that? no can any scientist do that?................... why not?

We appeal to known, observable, and understood natural mechanisms. It's you who claims magic.

Many different types of self replicating molecules, organic and otherwise, are known, as well as self replicating protobiotic structures and vesicles to contain them. Lipids, amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleotides (including the DNA bases) all form spontaneously, and can combine into organic structures.
Magic poofing, on the other hand, has no known possible mechanism, and has never been observed.
'Goddidit' explains nothing, it just posits an invisible agent. It proposes magic as a more likely 'mechanism' than chemistry or biology -- known sciences.

Abiogenetics and "chemical evolution" are very active areas of research. New discoveries are reported in biology journals all the time. There's a lot more known than you seem to realize. Do some research.

Before declaring "impossible!" you should explain why -- since chemistry is a well known science and Earth is known to harbor life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you believe that life is chemically based?

It is. Demonstrably so.

 

[Valjean]

There is no known natural mechanism that can create self-replicating proteins (ether RNA o something else) without preexisting life.

Please admit this simple and uncontroversial fact of science.........................If you want to believe by faith that an unknown natural mechanism did it………..feel free to do it but you would not be in a position to criticize creationists that believe by faith in talking snakes both are equally absurd based on what we currently know

Uncovering the universality of self-replication in protein aggregation and its link to disease

Fibrillar protein aggregates are a hallmark of a range of human disorders, from prion diseases to dementias, but are also encountered in several functional contexts. Yet, the fundamental links between protein assembly mechanisms and their functional or ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Don't amyloid and various prions replicate? Can't spontaneously generated RNA create ribosomes and proteins?

 

[Valjean]

That doesn’t change the fact that there is not a single viable hypothesis for abiogenesis, all hypothesis fail for some reason or an other...Except for those mysterious hypothesis that only you know about

There are multiple viable hypotheses under investigation. Not yet understood does not equal impossible.
Much of what we know was once unknown and attributed to God.
I.D, on the other hand, doesn't even posit a hypothesis, just a claim of agency and magic. Nor is there any I.D. research being done that might yield an explanation.

 

[Valjean]

Some aren't going to admit that. Just as some here will keep insisting that humans are monkeys.

What's to admit? The claim is just plain wrong.
And noōne I know of claims humans are monkeys. Please stop trolling.