• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is your best evidence for a god?

nPeace

Veteran Member
Just to get the distinctions right, what, in your mind, is not constructed?
I think the better question is, what is constructed. A house is constructed, by someone. It did not assemble itself.
What reason(s) do you have for believing the brain constructed itself, and that it's connections somehow lined up in a precisely ordered structure, according to a plan, with specific requirements, in order to reach an intended purpose or goals?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I think the better question is, what is constructed.
You have given examples of what you think is constructed. But if you can't give examples what isn't constructed, the word doesn't have a meaning. It is not fit to distinguish.
A house is constructed, by someone. It did not assemble itself.
We agree on that. But what about a tree? It is grown. Does that count as constructed or not constructed? What about a crystal, a snowflake for example? It is also grown and looks pretty complex. What about the solar system? Or let's go the other direction. What about molecules or atoms or hadrons? Except for the fundamental particles, everything is a combination of other things. Constructed or not?
What reason(s) do you have for believing the brain constructed itself, and that it's connections somehow lined up in a precisely ordered structure, according to a plan, with specific requirements, in order to reach an intended purpose or goals?
What reason(s) do you have for believing the brain is constructed when you can see it grow?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
For example we know, from repeated observation and experimentation, that only intelligence provides organization of functional complex systems.

Firstly, this is false. Evolution also provides a route functional complex systems. Secondly, intelligence is a functionally complex system, so you're trying to explain functional complexity by postulating even more of it, which leads directly to an infinite regress or just and even bigger unknown than you started with (based on nothing but a guess)...
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
You have given examples of what you think is constructed. But if you can't give examples what isn't constructed, the word doesn't have a meaning. It is not fit to distinguish.

We agree on that. But what about a tree? It is grown. Does that count as constructed or not constructed? What about a crystal, a snowflake for example? It is also grown and looks pretty complex. What about the solar system? Or let's go the other direction. What about molecules or atoms or hadrons? Except for the fundamental particles, everything is a combination of other things. Constructed or not?

What reason(s) do you have for believing the brain is constructed when you can see it grow?
I am talking about design.
Design has particular features that must be present.
What is design?
Design - Wikipedia

It does not matter if one can go right down to the most insignificant structure, say for example a clump of mold.
That would not be relevant to a discussion on a skyscraper.

The structure I used in my argument requires various features to be present.
1) Various components must be present.
2) Those components must be unified structure, 3) meeting and carrying out particular requirements designed to 4) reach a particular goal or purpose.

A tree grows yes, but you have not considered what went into the structure of the tree. You have just looked at the tree and says it grows.
How could it grow? It didn't grow from nothing.
How did it get there? It didn't appear out of thin air.
People grow too. Our bodies grow. Our hair... What about cells...

Let's say though, I am interested in this...
Bolted joints are one of the most common elements in construction and machine design. They consist of fasteners that capture and join other parts, and are secured with the mating of screw threads.

Would focusing on one bolt make the designed structure irrelevant or unimportant?
Let's focus on the structure, and not the bolt. Why? Because it doesn't matter if there are a thousand bolts, some plates and brackets, they don't contribute to the design, until the above requirements are met.
This is what I am looking at.... not the bolt.

How can you demonstrate that the brain is not designed? Do you believe that the trillions of components united to form a structure with specified requirements with a particular purpose, or goals in mind?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I am talking about design.
Design has particular features that must be present.
What is design?
Design - Wikipedia

It does not matter if one can go right down to the most insignificant structure, say for example a clump of mold.
That would not be relevant to a discussion on a skyscraper.

The structure I used in my argument requires various features to be present.
1) Various components must be present.
2) Those components must be unified structure, 3) meeting and carrying out particular requirements designed to 4) reach a particular goal or purpose.

A tree grows yes, but you have not considered what went into the structure of the tree. You have just looked at the tree and says it grows.
How could it grow? It didn't grow from nothing.
How did it get there? It didn't appear out of thin air.
People grow too. Our bodies grow. Our hair... What about cells...

Let's say though, I am interested in this...
Bolted joints are one of the most common elements in construction and machine design. They consist of fasteners that capture and join other parts, and are secured with the mating of screw threads.

Would focusing on one bolt make the designed structure irrelevant or unimportant?
Let's focus on the structure, and not the bolt. Why? Because it doesn't matter if there are a thousand bolts, some plates and brackets, they don't contribute to the design, until the above requirements are met.
This is what I am looking at.... not the bolt.

How can you demonstrate that the brain is not designed? Do you believe that the trillions of components united to form a structure with specified requirements with a particular purpose, or goals in mind?
No answer is also an answer.
I conclude you admit that you can't distinguish design from non-design.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
so, dead inanimate matter produces living beings

First of all, inanimate matter is not "dead". Only things that were previously alive can be "dead".

..... just because, for no reason to no purpose or end, just because....

Because chemistry and physics.

something out of nothing

Literally nobody, except theists, believe that life came from "nothing".

....man, atheists have more faith than the religious .

Only in your extremely ignorant strawman.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Very good. Why though?

Because of its properties.
It's made from plastics and other non-naturally occuring materials.
It has inscriptions on it like numbers, codes and "made it china".
It has brand markings.
It shows signs of manufacturing like soldering.

Everything about it pretty much screams "human made".

The intricate parts are all put together in a very ordered, or systematic way.

You left out the most important part: custom way.
Indicated it was manufactored / forged by some agent, as opposed to formed / evolved through, or under the influence of, the laws of nature.

The other question is, does my circuit board work?

That doesn't matter.
A non-working one would bear all the same marks of manufacturing / custom processing.

Heck, an abstract sculpture that serves no purpose other then to stand in a corner as decoration, would still bear marks of manufacturing, like carving.

The purpose/function of an object is of no importance when the goal is determining if it is custom made or naturally formed.

Well, if I put it into the computer for which it was designed, all the ports when connected, should fire up my machine.
Why? Because each connected component on my circuit board was specifically designed 1) according to a plan, 2) with specific requirements, 3) intended for reaching a specific purpose, or goal.

Sure, that is the case for such components.
It is not the case for an abstract art sculpture.

It has no relevancy to it being designed or not.

A "natural process which literally results in natural design"?

Yes...

Please explain what natural design is.

Patterns and processes that emerge as a direct result of the laws of nature affecting matter.


Let's just make it a billion trillion and go with that.

Consider that the brain is our circuit board.

Why? It is nothing like it.

Are these components intricate, put together in a systematic way, according to plan, with specific requirements, intended for reaching specific purpose, or goals?

I agree up until "in a systematic way". The rest can't be deduced from the mere observation of the structure. And that "rest", eventhough you mentioned multiple things, is really just one thing: pre-planned intention.

How did you concluded that it was intentionally put together?
You are infusion agency into it without any reason, without any evidence.

It is no more then an assumed conclusion.


Having said that, the question you ask, is not how one distinguishes natural objects from manufactured / designed ones.


When plugged into the machine, our body, does the brain work?

You can't exactly "unplug" a brain.
A brain isn't "plugged in".


Consider...
The brain has to coordinate the movement of some 100 muscles in your tongue, throat, lips, jaw, and chest. All those muscles have to move according to precise timing if the words are to be understood. Regarding the ability to speak languages, a study published in 2019 showed that newborn babies can pick out individual words.

This finding reinforces what many researchers believe - that we are born with the ability to recognize and learn languages.

That's just one area of the "machine".
If we were to zero in on the tongue alone, there is still a lot of unknowns, but with the brain, human can taste hundreds of different flavors, and can sense every object, even the tiniest bone, on the tongue... all with the connected "circuit board" - our brain.

Your argument from awe, that you reinforce with an equivocation fallacy and an assumed conclusion, is noted.

If that is not enough evidence of a designer

It isn't evidence of anything, except perhaps that much still remains to be learned about the brain.

You have given exactly 0 evidence for the idea of brains being designed / manufactured with intent by an external agent.

- as it is obvious our bodies give evidence of design - requiring a designer


Natural design does not require a "designer". Natural designs are produced by natural processes, governed by the laws of nature..

, then I see no need to provide further evidence, as great as it is.

:rolleyes:

You have given not evidence at all.
Describing how a brain works and saying "we don't know how this or that works" 50 times, doesn't constitute evidence for an external agent that designs brains with intention. You haven't even begun to address the origins of brains. All you did was cite a few factoids while falsely equivocating it to a human made product while completely ignoring the MANY ways in which they are different. While it is exactly those differences that make one a custom object and the other a natural one.

Please explain how the above bear the signs of evolution.
Natural design? Let's see that.

This is nice.
Photo-1-Estates_SauconValley_FeaturedThumbnail.jpg

Although I know that's not what you have in mind. Let's see what you have. :)


1. we know from the fossil record that brain sizes in a lineage vary over time. The brain size of the human lineage has nearly trippled over the past 7 million years

2. we have extant examples from extremely rudimentary brains all the way up to large complex ones

3. we know that brain building is determined and regulated through genetics, pretty much like all the other parts of our body

4. we know of specific mutations that induce changes in brain size.

5. the brain bears no signs of manufacturing

All the evidence points to brains being a natural occurrence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What reason(s) do you have for believing the brain constructed itself, and that it's connections somehow lined up in a precisely ordered structure, according to a plan, with specific requirements, in order to reach an intended purpose or goals?

Loaded question, as I showed in my last post. It's the same kind of stuff that is loaded into it.

What plan? What specific requirements? What purpose or goals?
These are all assumptions on your part. You haven't even begun to address any type of justification for those assumptions.

Even worse, you have turned the tables on your burden of proof on them and now require others to explain it for you.

Justify your own claims.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Would focusing on one bolt make the designed structure irrelevant or unimportant?
Let's focus on the structure, and not the bolt. Why? Because it doesn't matter if there are a thousand bolts, some plates and brackets, they don't contribute to the design, until the above requirements are met.
This is what I am looking at.... not the bolt.

And that is your mistake.
It's unfortunate that you are so entrenched in your assumed conclusion that you won't be able to realize nore acknowledge this mistake.

How can you demonstrate that the brain is not designed?

1. shifting the burden of proof. it is your job to demonstrate that it IS designed, if you wish to make that claim

2. all the evidence supports that the brain, like all other body parts, is a result of the evolutionary process.

Do you believe that the trillions of components united to form a structure with specified requirements with a particular purpose, or goals in mind?

No.

I believe that self-replicating biological systems reproduced with modifications after which those modifications were subject to the forces of natural selection, which caused the lineage to undergo a never-ending cycle of adapation to whatever the criteria were that natural selection consisted of at any particular moment in time.

I believe that many, the vast vast majority actually, of lineages didn't survive that and thus went extinct.


And I believe that, because it is what all the evidence supports and because it is independently verifiable and testable.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
First of all, inanimate matter is not "dead". Only things that were previously alive can be "dead".



Because chemistry and physics.



Literally nobody, except theists, believe that life came from "nothing".



Only in your extremely ignorant strawman.
if you only wish to be rude, please refrain from talking with me....
odd how the atheist crowd typically wants only to run others down....
certainly not all some of you guys are level headed, the rest just wish to pick fights and make rude remarks.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
f you only wish to be rude, please refrain from talking with me....
odd how the atheist crowd typically wants only to run others down....
certainly not all some of you guys are level headed, the rest just wish to pick fights and make rude remarks.

Well you did completely misrepresent to scientific position and then accuse atheists of faith based on that misrepresentation. The fact is that you did use a straw man fallacy (apparently) based on extreme ignorance of the subject at hand.

I suggest that if you can't be bothered to do some basic homework before commenting, then don't take offence when it's pointed out.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
Well you did completely misrepresent to scientific position and then accuse atheists of faith based on that misrepresentation. The fact is that you did use a straw man fallacy (apparently) based on extreme ignorance of the subject at hand.

I suggest that if you can't be bothered to do some basic homework before commenting, then don't take offence when it's pointed out.
and your opinion means what to me, nothing, but thanks for sharing that absurdity.
 
Top