We don't know - but we have no reason to assume design is inherent or involved. That's the point.
As far as I know, I did give the reason.
"Simply look at and observe the features" is not a specific answer. I'm asking how do you identify inherent design without prior knowledge of the object's formation. Why can't you answer that if it's so simple?
Prior knowledge of the objects formation is not required to know that something was designed.
We do not need prior knowledge of a computer's formation, in order to know how to build a computer - otherwise, one would never be built. All we need is prior knowledge of how electronics work, and perhaps basic knowledge of electronic devices.
Knowledge of, and experience with objects help us to analyze and understand other objects which we may not be familiar with, or have never seen.
I did answer the question, in a very simple way. I hope the above is simpler.
But, once again, that is based entirely on observed prior knowledge of a design process. If you aren't already aware of the design process, how do you conclude design?
Excellent!
And it's still baseless and unreasonable.
Explain why.
Because not once in the entirety of human history have we witnessed any kind of intelligent agency formulating something that we otherwise observe forming through natural process.
Reminder. You said above, 'You do not know.' Thank you.
You only assume it is forming through natural processes.
How do "patterns" indicate God? Why can patterns not be the result of inherent natural processes?
Why
can't it indicate God - A creator, and designer?
When you assert you can identify design by simply observing complexity, that's what you are doing.
It's not about complexity. Complexity came in as a contrast of the level of intelligence, not as a basis for assuming a designer. I always find that this seems to be a misunderstanding in communication.
Every single time I have asked you how you identify design, you keep making references to objects that you already know from direct experience and observation are designed. I'm asking you how you can identify design without prior knowledge of the process, and if all you can do is bring up examples of things you know that WERE designed then you're not actually answering the challenge. You have not observed the Universe's formation, so you have no similar frame of reference to assert it as a product of design. This is is simple logic. Saying "x is designed, therefore y is also designed" is baseless unless you can actually demonstrate how and why you determined it to be so.
Thanks for making yourself clearer.
Thanks for reminding me that I have not observed the universe forming. It might have been better if you said we, so it is clear we are on the same page, in that regard.
The universe had a beginning. The universe is ordered - governed by laws. The universe seems to be purposefully arranged, from all that is observed in the universe, including our ecosystem... The "language" of DNA - what we call the blueprint of life - that gives instructions, did not come about on its own... far as we know....
I could go on...
We have evidence - we observe - that all these things require a cause. What is the cause for the creation of the universe?
We have evidence - we observe - that laws come into existence by a lawgiver - causation again.
The laws are fixed, not random. Randomness is not fixed. Why do universal laws exist?
We have evidence - we observe - that there is intent and reason, in purpose, and this comes from intelligence. Why does the universe seem to be purposefully created?
We have evidence - we observe - that language is a system of communication associated with the mind. Why is there language, and instruction in DNA?
You have a clue - not an inkling.
Logic, sensibility, reason - all based on our experience, and observation - leads to, not a baseless conclusion, but I believe, a reasonable one. For now, I will not mention the Bible, which give us I believe, reliable evidence.
I don't really know that I can rephrase it that makes it any more clear than it already is. The point is that you can only assert design by prior knowledge of what is observed in nature. To assert that nature is designed, without evidence of an actual design process, makes no sense.
Thank you.