Inherent Characteristics of Design

[Ouroboros]

BTW: why do these discussions always limit themselves to a single designer? If we're going to make analogies from humans, then let's go all the way: it's rare for a watch designer to design other things... or even different styles of watch. It kinda bugs me that so many arguments for God - flawed as they are - are never honest enough about their implications to admit that even if they were valid, they wouldn't be arguments for the existence of God; they'd be arguments for the existence of at least one god.

Also, since we know that watches are in most cases made by robots, we should assume that God is a robot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree

With which part?

 

[Etritonakin]

With which part?

The part about it being incorrect. I do not feel like reiterating or expounding. It seems you need to realize something else before you can see it from the proper perspective. It is best that I leave you to do that, or I will simply be wasting time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you somehow knew life on earth was unique in the universe, would you conclude it was designed?

We can know that a watch is designed because it cannot be produced by natural processes in the absence of forethought and intent (can such be called natural?) -unless we can say it is possible that natural processes alone could produce a specific model of watch, for example.

All of the materials of the watch are available in nature, but nature cannot produce it.

Does the same apply to DNA? Cells? Grass?

Is life on earth like a watch in the forest?

The materials are all over the universe -but could life have happened without forethought and intent?

Given enough information and a correct set of criteria, it should be able to be determined without indentifying the designer (though the designed thing would somewhat reveal the nature of the designer). Perhaps we just aren't there yet.

Why can natural processes in the absence of forethought and intent not produce a watch (a watch -not clocks, etc. found in "nature")?

I haven't thought it through enough to express it well -will work on it.

"Nature" is what we call the environment we did not design.

We only assume it was not designed -but whether it was or was not, we should eventually be able to prove it one way or the other.

We see certain processes taking place and in motion which need not continued input from a designer -but we have yet to determine whether or not what we see required forethought and intent.

Perhaps it required that God purposefully aimed this space rock at that planet -heated this thing to exactly that temperature at whatever time, etc. -causing a specific arrangement which could not have otherwise happened.

When we make a watch, it is technically by natural processes, but in an arrangement which cannot happen without us.

If a designer encoded the emergence of life into the Big Bang (or whatever) -setting in motion that which would eventually and inevitably produce life -this molecule being caused here -another there -moved together by this or that, the task would require knowledge of that which was before the Big Bang, but if the environment was encoded into the Big Bang and life could not have been produced without further action after the Big Bang, that should be apparent given enough information, etc.....

Perhaps we have enough information but haven't looked at it properly -perhaps not.

(I also like to look at the whole of what is in terms of a mold and a cast. We can say that whatever may have happened before man produced us -and must it not be at least as aware, capable and intelligent as we are?
Can we not know it somewhat by our own selves?)

Life on Earth is rare. In a way it is unique. However we do understand how natural processes could have created life. If we understand how it may have happened in a way that happens naturally why would we need a creator as an answer? Either god works through nature without interveening in a supernatural sense or we were not created at all. It seems to me that there isn't enough evidence to suggest that we are the pinnacle of any sort of design.

I do not believe our complexity happened by pure chance.

And you would be right. But there is a lot between pure and simple chance and design. Its not one or the other and the truth is in fact something else.

Shaking a bag is not a bad example -it is a bad example of what happened -it is an excellent example of what did not happen. What happened was much more like the process that makes a watch.

If there was a fundamental force of some kind with shaking the bag that could allow the pieces to come together but it only required you to shake the bag enough times, then yes it would be a good example. Other than that its simply not a good example as shaking a bag does not have processes within its mechanism that can create a watch. We know that nature has processes that can allow life.

I'll agree with more or less -but more on the less side. You are aware of some of the specific steps in the process.

Obviously, all that is happened by a process -a very specific process.

It is an assumption that we do not have examples of what was designed by God -but we do not have confirmation.

The logic may be 100 percent sound that what is could not have happened without design, but without confirmation there will always be room for doubt -yet that is not to say we have not arrived at the truth.

When you say "natural processes" you may not know that they were designed and set in motion to cause a specific end result -and you do not know whether or not those processes included intentional action at any point -at least not at this time.

I disagree with your first paragraph -but don't have time to address it right now.

Whenever you are ready to address it feel free too. But in this point you have made the appeal of "we don't have evidence for god but we don't have evidence it wasn't god except that it appears to have been done by natural processes but there is still the possibility that god was involved."

At this point it seems a poor argument.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Whenever you are ready to address it feel free too. But in this point you have made the appeal of "we don't have evidence for god but we don't have evidence it wasn't god except that it appears to have been done by natural processes but there is still the possibility that god was involved."

The fairytale that evolution scientists would have us believe that some evolution scientists still believe in God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The fairytale that evolution scientists would have us believe that some evolution scientists still believe in God.

And the fairy tale that you would like us to believe is that your word on science has any merit at all. I typically don't respond to you anymore since you don't say anything of substance. Bring something of substance or I won't respond further.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The part about it being incorrect. I do not feel like reiterating or expounding. It seems you need to realize something else before you can see it from the proper perspective. It is best that I leave you to do that, or I will simply be wasting time.

You're free to reply or not to any post, of course.

Your position in this thread has been an interesting progression. In the OP, you seemed to have no firm opinion at all, and now we've reached a point where you're so sure of your opinion that people who don't accept it supposedly have something literally wrong with them.

I'm not sure what happened over the course of the thread to instil this level of certainty in you. Personally, I didn't think any of the arguments for design were compelling at all.

 

[Etritonakin]

You're free to reply or not to any post, of course.

Your position in this thread has been an interesting progression. In the OP, you seemed to have no firm opinion at all, and now we've reached a point where you're so sure of your opinion that people who don't accept it supposedly have something literally wrong with them.

I'm not sure what happened over the course of the thread to instil this level of certainty in you. Personally, I didn't think any of the arguments for design were compelling at all.

Yah -that's about right.


Noooo -seriously, though..... It may have seemed that way, but that's not the case. On that one point, I feel that it would be futile to continue -and also that I am correct on that one point. That's probably the one point of which I am certain in all of this -but was not so certain of it before I started this thread.
That's not to say something is wrong with anyone -but it is often that case that one cannot see one point as valid if they do not first see that another is valid. I'm just not interested in the logic loop that would probably have ensued.
Many of the E v C threads are just the same old things over and over and over -and it gets tiresome.
It probably came across as condescending, but that was not my intent.

The purpose of the thread was to collect ideas/viewpoints,etc... -things I wrote were not necessarily always things I firmly believed, but were more like brainstorming.
This is the first time I have considered the matter. I'm pretty sure some of the things I wrote were even quite contradictory -even in the same post.

However, becoming more and more certain of things is pretty much the point of debates, discussions, learning, etc...

If something I write compels someone, great -but what compels people or does not may have as much or more to do with their present views as than anything I might write.
Nothing a scientist says is going to compel a young earth creationist as long as they are not willing to accept certain points, for example -or a scientist might doubt someone who had actually seen an angel or something because they did not have the experience themselves (I would probably doubt, and I believe in them).
Maybe you were not compelled because I was incorrect about something -maybe not.

I'm not really going about trying to compel anyone, though -or try to convince them -their minds are theirs, and I try to avoid being all up in someone's melon. That's just rude.

 

[Etritonakin]

Life on Earth is rare. In a way it is unique. However we do understand how natural processes could have created life. If we understand how it may have happened in a way that happens naturally why would we need a creator as an answer? Either god works through nature without interveening in a supernatural sense or we were not created at all. It seems to me that there isn't enough evidence to suggest that we are the pinnacle of any sort of design.


And you would be right. But there is a lot between pure and simple chance and design. Its not one or the other and the truth is in fact something else.

If there was a fundamental force of some kind with shaking the bag that could allow the pieces to come together but it only required you to shake the bag enough times, then yes it would be a good example. Other than that its simply not a good example as shaking a bag does not have processes within its mechanism that can create a watch. We know that nature has processes that can allow life.

Whenever you are ready to address it feel free too. But in this point you have made the appeal of "we don't have evidence for god but we don't have evidence it wasn't god except that it appears to have been done by natural processes but there is still the possibility that god was involved."

At this point it seems a poor argument.

I don't mind this -at least it's going somewhere.

The fact that we are the pinnacle of life on earth -having more power over our environment than any other life form on earth -or even all combined -by the design of our bodies and minds -is the evidence that we are the pinnacle of a design.

It is only the true nature and origin of that design -and whether or not our design required a designer -which is in question -and we do lack evidence of exactly how it came to be.
We can generally know the step-by-step process which produced it, but that is not the same as knowing what may or may not have guided that process or caused it to be as it is rather than something else or nothing at all.

The question is not really "Why do we need a God if things can happen by natural processes?", but "Do natural processes need a God?"

How could a designer employ or work with anything but what is? Design is the manipulation and guidance of "natural processes" to produce an intended state which sometimes could not have otherwise existed.
We can produce something unique with what is available -but we can also replicate that which already existed (which is not to say it was not designed itself).

We can understand the steps which would be necessary to produce a watch -so why would a watch need a designer? Because it could not have occurred without one.

Why? because nature cannot produce watches -even though it has all of the available materials and forces necessary.

We can conceivably arrange nature to produce watches -even change the design of them based on various factors -by making a self-contained watch factory programmed to run without us (not a perfect example) -but watches still could not have existed without us.

Pure and simple chance really has nothing to do with what happened, anyway. If God does not exist, what happened after the big bang could have happened no other way -and would continue on its inevitable course until decision could be exerted upon it by a being capable of forethought, intent and manipulation. So -all that happened after the big bang would have inevitably produced man -it could have been no other way (and man is the most god-like being of which we have direct evidence, so the big bang would have inevitably produced god-like beings -who continue to grow in knowledge and ability -having increased power over "nature")

Either we were programmed into the big bang (all we know of as that which produced "nature") -or we were programmed after the big bang -that is to say... nature was arranged to produce us.

If you look at the big bang as an executable, either the life subroutine was included in it -or added after it ran for some time (I don't know much about programming, so my terms may be off).

Either way, the question is whether or not whatever nature was at any given point (what happened and existed before the big bang is also "nature") required that it be purposefully arranged to produce life.

If we knew enough about the nature of "nature" we could reach a conclusion -even without being able to identify the designer, if the conclusion was that it did require a designer .....just as we are (disagree if you like) able to determine that a watch cannot be produced by natural processes without forethought or intent because it requires a specific arrangement of nature which otherwise could not have been.

That's just where I'm at -true or otherwise.

Anyway -I need to give my head a rest -might not be back to the thread for a while.

 

[Shad]

I don't mind this -at least it's going somewhere.

The fact that we are the pinnacle of life on earth -having more power over our environment than any other life form on earth -or even all combined -by the design of our bodies and minds -is the evidence that we are the pinnacle of a design.

It can be also claimed to be the pinnacle of evolution. Since evolutionary theory has support and design does not even have a hypothesis the evolutionary view is valid and sound while ID is not.

It is only the true nature and origin of that design -and whether or not our design required a designer -which is in question -and we do lack evidence of exactly how it came to be.
We can generally know the step-by-step process which produced it, but that is not the same as knowing what may or may not have guided that process or caused it to be as it is rather than something else or nothing at all.


The question is not really "Why do we need a God if things can happen by natural processes?", but "Do natural processes need a God?"

In order to identify something is in fact designed and not a trick of patterning find tendencies.

How could a designer employ or work with anything but what is? Design is the manipulation and guidance of "natural processes" to produce an intended state which sometimes could not have otherwise existed.
We can produce something unique with what is available -but we can also replicate that which already existed (which is not to say it was not designed itself).

Natural process are not guided. By manipulating this process it is not longer natural. All you are doing is attaching known mechanics while tacking God on to it then invaliding the process which is your starting point. Your point is incoherent as you invalid your premise of natural process with the premise of guidance.

We can understand the steps which would be necessary to produce a watch -so why would a watch need a designer? Because it could not have occurred without one.

Pure and simple chance really has nothing to do with what happened, anyway. If God does not exist, what happened after the big bang could have happened no other way -and would continue on its inevitable course until decision could be exerted upon it by a being capable of forethought, intent and manipulation. So -all that happened after the big bang would have inevitably produced man -it could have been no other way (and man is the most god-like being of which we have direct evidence, so the big bang would have inevitably produced god-like beings -who continue to grow in knowledge and ability -having increased power over "nature")

This only follow from non-sentient objects without life. These object have no ability to do anything. Sentient beings have the ability to alter hard determinism. For example there is hypothetical flood area that experiences repeated flood annually. A group of one species with the capability to run and climb exists within this event. The members of the group that flee could result in a divergence in which the traits, genes, etc that favour this responsible survive. Likewise the climbing group could survive and promote climbing over running. Alternatives are one group survives and the other does not as it's reaction to the event failed. Both groups could die. I could provide addition reactions but my point here is established enough.

Either we were programmed into the big bang (all we know of as that which produced "nature") -or we were programmed after the big bang -that is to say... nature was arranged to produce us.

Refuted above

If you look at the big bang as an executable, either the life subroutine was included in it -or added after it ran for some time (I don't know much about programming, so my terms may be off).

This is just rehashing the argument in another format. While many acknowledge can entertain this view you have not provided evidence that such a view should be accept. Merely asking someone to look at the conclusion does nothing to valid or make it sound.

 

[Etritonakin]

It can be also claimed to be the pinnacle of evolution. Since evolutionary theory has support and design does not even have a hypothesis the evolutionary view is valid and sound while ID is not.



In order to identify something is in fact designed and not a trick of patterning find tendencies.



Natural process are not guided. By manipulating this process it is not longer natural. All you are doing is attaching known mechanics while tacking God on to it then invaliding the process which is your starting point. Your point is incoherent as you invalid your premise of natural process with the premise of guidance.





This only follow from non-sentient objects without life. These object have no ability to do anything. Sentient beings have the ability to alter hard determinism. For example there is hypothetical flood area that experiences repeated flood annually. A group of one species with the capability to run and climb exists within this event. The members of the group that flee could result in a divergence in which the traits, genes, etc that favour this responsible survive. Likewise the climbing group could survive and promote climbing over running. Alternatives are one group survives and the other does not as it's reaction to the event failed. Both groups could die. I could provide addition reactions but my point here is established enough.



Refuted above



This is just rehashing the argument in another format. While many acknowledge can entertain this view you have not provided evidence that such a view should be accept. Merely asking someone to look at the conclusion does nothing to valid or make it sound.

This is definitely just a rehashing.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't mind this -at least it's going somewhere.

The fact that we are the pinnacle of life on earth -having more power over our environment than any other life form on earth -or even all combined -by the design of our bodies and minds -is the evidence that we are the pinnacle of a design.

Those are "facts" I'd strongly dispute.

It is only the true nature and origin of that design -and whether or not our design required a designer -which is in question -and we do lack evidence of exactly how it came to be.
We can generally know the step-by-step process which produced it, but that is not the same as knowing what may or may not have guided that process or caused it to be as it is rather than something else or nothing at all.

The question is not really "Why do we need a God if things can happen by natural processes?", but "Do natural processes need a God?"

No, natural processes do not need a god.

How could a designer employ or work with anything but what is? Design is the manipulation and guidance of "natural processes" to produce an intended state which sometimes could not have otherwise existed.
We can produce something unique with what is available -but we can also replicate that which already existed (which is not to say it was not designed itself).

We can understand the steps which would be necessary to produce a watch -so why would a watch need a designer? Because it could not have occurred without one.

Why? because nature cannot produce watches -even though it has all of the available materials and forces necessary.

No, nature does not produce mechanical watches because there is no selective process for mechanical watches, all the needs for time keeping are already filled by biological based time keepers.

We can conceivably arrange nature to produce watches -even change the design of them based on various factors -by making a self-contained watch factory programmed to run without us (not a perfect example) -but watches still could not have existed without us.

Nature solved the timekeeping problem millions of year ago, you may not like, or even acknowledge, the solution(s) but they removed the selective pressure.

Pure and simple chance really has nothing to do with what happened, anyway. If God does not exist, what happened after the big bang could have happened no other way -and would continue on its inevitable course until decision could be exerted upon it by a being capable of forethought, intent and manipulation. So -all that happened after the big bang would have inevitably produced man -it could have been no other way (and man is the most god-like being of which we have direct evidence, so the big bang would have inevitably produced god-like beings -who continue to grow in knowledge and ability -having increased power over "nature")

Claptrap! There is an interplay of the way the universe is (e.g., natural laws) with some elements of biological stochasticity (e.g., a particular mutation occurring at a particular time, or for that matter no occurring at a particular time), with some elements of physical stochasticity (e.g., a large meteor collusion with Earth w/o which the "dominant" and "conscious" clade might well have been reptilian rather than mammalian).

Either we were programmed into the big bang (all we know of as that which produced "nature") -or we were programmed after the big bang -that is to say... nature was arranged to produce us.

That is what is know as a "false dichotomy."

If you look at the big bang as an executable, either the life subroutine was included in it -or added after it ran for some time (I don't know much about programming, so my terms may be off).

The big bang is not an executable and life is not a subroutine, the information theory analogy is not applicable.

Either way, the question is whether or not whatever nature was at any given point (what happened and existed before the big bang is also "nature") required that it be purposefully arranged to produce life.

Nature was not arranged to produce life (if nothing else that is the height of hubris), life arose within the constraints of natural systems.

If we knew enough about the nature of "nature" we could reach a conclusion -even without being able to identify the designer, if the conclusion was that it did require a designer .....just as we are (disagree if you like) able to determine that a watch cannot be produced by natural processes without forethought or intent because it requires a specific arrangement of nature which otherwise could not have been.

There is no requirement for a designer.

That's just where I'm at -true or otherwise.

Otherwise.

 

[Shad]

This is definitely just a rehashing.

Notice that one view has a theory that works in medicine and the other does not even have a hypothesis. You are the one rehashing evolution then adding God to it. This violates Occam's Razor as God adds nothing to the idea and is just an assumption. More so think of the implications of your view. If everything is designed then diseases and viruses which mutate beyond current treatment are also designed. So God, with intent, causing harm by doing so. This is malice and immoral.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The fact that we are the pinnacle of life on earth -having more power over our environment than any other life form on earth -or even all combined -by the design of our bodies and minds -is the evidence that we are the pinnacle of a design.

Yet Chimpanzees, our closest relative genetically, has a better memory than we do. Several other animals have vastly superior "designs". Other humans were almost or even possibly equally advanced as we but died out because of other circumstances. If we are the pinnacle of design then the designer did a **** poor job what with cancer and all other manor of diseases running rampant.

It is only the true nature and origin of that design -and whether or not our design required a designer -which is in question -and we do lack evidence of exactly how it came to be.
We can generally know the step-by-step process which produced it, but that is not the same as knowing what may or may not have guided that process or caused it to be as it is rather than something else or nothing at all.

What portion are you confused about? More or less we do understand what it was that causes our evolution. And if we know it to be possible then why would we assume that god had to have intervened?

The question is not really "Why do we need a God if things can happen by natural processes?", but "Do natural processes need a God?"

Return question, why would nature need god? Is god actually nature?

How could a designer employ or work with anything but what is? Design is the manipulation and guidance of "natural processes" to produce an intended state which sometimes could not have otherwise existed.
We can produce something unique with what is available -but we can also replicate that which already existed (which is not to say it was not designed itself).

What you are getting into is somewhere along the lines of theistic evolution. I feel this stance is far better than ID which fully denies evolution. If you believe god was the cause of evolution then you at least accept evolution yes?

We can understand the steps which would be necessary to produce a watch -so why would a watch need a designer? Because it could not have occurred without one.

Indeed. But life it seems, can occur without a designer.

Why? because nature cannot produce watches -even though it has all of the available materials and forces necessary.

Yes. but it appears it can produce life.

Pure and simple chance really has nothing to do with what happened, anyway. If God does not exist, what happened after the big bang could have happened no other way -and would continue on its inevitable course until decision could be exerted upon it by a being capable of forethought, intent and manipulation. So -all that happened after the big bang would have inevitably produced man -it could have been no other way (and man is the most god-like being of which we have direct evidence, so the big bang would have inevitably produced god-like beings -who continue to grow in knowledge and ability -having increased power over "nature")

Possibly. And some believe this to be so. But others believe that there are probabilities that may even split us into different universes where every possible outcome is reached.

Either we were programmed into the big bang (all we know of as that which produced "nature") -or we were programmed after the big bang -that is to say... nature was arranged to produce us.

If you look at the big bang as an executable, either the life subroutine was included in it -or added after it ran for some time (I don't know much about programming, so my terms may be off).

Either way, the question is whether or not whatever nature was at any given point (what happened and existed before the big bang is also "nature") required that it be purposefully arranged to produce life.

Which seems to be an impossible question to answer scientifically and without evidence "of" a said creator then we cannot assume a creator scientifically. People may make whatever claims they will philosophically or theistically.

If we knew enough about the nature of "nature" we could reach a conclusion -even without being able to identify the designer, if the conclusion was that it did require a designer .....just as we are (disagree if you like) able to determine that a watch cannot be produced by natural processes without forethought or intent because it requires a specific arrangement of nature which otherwise could not have been.

That's just where I'm at -true or otherwise.

Anyway -I need to give my head a rest -might not be back to the thread for a while.

If I understand you correctly you mean to state that if we are able to fully uncover the mechanisms of our universe and natural laws and somehow reverse engineer those laws to show that they could not have produced life then we would have to assume an intelligent designer? I wouldn't fully agree but I would agree that what we knew of the natural laws and if we somehow were able to derive all that there is to those laws, then we could conclude it was something other than those laws that produced life. What that is would be rather open ended.

 

[Sapiens]

Yet Chimpanzees, our closest relative genetically, has a better memory than we do. Several other animals have vastly superior "designs". Other humans were almost or even possibly equally advanced as we but died out because of other circumstances. If we are the pinnacle of design then the designer did a **** poor job what with cancer and all other manor of diseases running rampant.

I once heard a well known primatologist suggest that while we humans threaten our planet's ability to support life as we know it, the worst that can be said of chimps is that they have humans as their closest living evolutionary relatives, a fact that would be likely to cause a superior alien civilization to stamp both species out in the interest of preserving the rest of life on this world.