shawn001
Well-Known Member
Only if you read it wrong.
-
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!
Why designed?
- Thread starter lunakilo
- Start date
Only if you read it wrong.
Personally I find evolution overrated, its not worth my time to defend or explain. If someone wants to learn it, the bookstores are full of willing authors and college's are more than willing to teach it. It will cost you but you'll be able to change the world or just change who knows.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Personally I find evolution overrated, its not worth my time to defend or explain"
You just called it a lie we were teaching our kids.
Not what I meant I was responding to your comment that we are teaching lies and deceptions. Didn't word it right. What I meant was is it with evolution studies that we are only teaching lies but I should have said Is creationism and ID the only lies we are teaching kids?
It doesn't matter though I didn't destroy or harm evolutionary science. I also didn't promote more ID and creationism studies.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Correction appreciated.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Personally, I think that's a misuse of the word "fact".Sorry. One of the properties of a fact is that it's verifiable.
What I think you really meant to say is conviction. Someone can be convinced about something, but it doesn't make it a fact. Of course it's a fact that they're convinced, but the thing they're convinced about isn't a "fact" per se, but just a conviction.
Wikipedia puts it this way: "Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. "
Nope. One can know a fact while another is convinced it is merely a conviction.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Exactly. You have a unique perspective. You may know facts nobody else knows. Moses saw the back parts of the Lord -we can doubt it.
It is verifiable -but you have not yet verified it. The fact that a fact is only known to one does not make it less of a fact.
If you have put something somewhere and I don't know what or where it is -it is still a fact.
The following is verifiable -though not easily.
Exo 33:18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
Exo 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I could go way into how long it took to write the bible, how many were involved and how many changes and inconsistincies are in it, like two of every animal or seven, or it rain for 40 days and nights or a whole year, all in the bible.
Individual " perspectives" don't change the facts unless they go through the work to prove them and then there is a concensus. The Bible isn't a science book of course. Even Genesis has the creation wrong in regards to what we now know.
"
Moses saw the back parts of the Lord -we can doubt it.
It is verifiable"
How is that verifiable?
Do you also know about falsifiable is science?
"
Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work
"Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
- Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
- Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
- Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
- Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | NCSE
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Why not design? I find the question begs the retort.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Assuming there is no "God" -and that man is the first being to consider the concept -and also consider themselves in relation to such a being.... the logical and inevitable course would be for man to design himself to be like God -if possible....
Increasing lifespan toward immortality....collecting knowledge....increasing power over the environment and the cosmos....changing the body to inherently possess the necessary characteristics (perfect memory and unlimited storage, universal mobility, direct interface, perfect adherence to necessary order), etc....
Assuming there is a God as described in the bible -the Alpha... by whom all things consist -that God would be irreducible at some point -but otherwise would have essentially designed himself as he designed all things -as he essentially is all things... both something to act upon and someone to act upon it....some sort of awareness and potential which made itself more of which to be aware.... in parallel....
(Just thinking....
The bible quotes God as saying of men "ye are gods" -and says that the creation awaits the children of God.
By essentially subdividing -creating borders between memory addresses and allocating resources to individual creative consciousnesses with individual processing ability -relinquishing or delegating power and authority -God makes smaller versions of himself, but all within "God" (I call it a sort of multiple personality order). He separated parts of himself which could initially disagree -but which would necessarily eventually agree as they align with perfect logic made clear by increased knowledge and experience.)
Anyway.... I see design in everything because there is design in everything. However, I see a designer in everything because I have seen and experienced evidence of a self-awareness which preceded and ordered all that we know and experience.
Design, purpose, function, etc., is all around -but it is intention which preceded it that is the question.
I started a thread about inherent characteristics of design -but the existence of God would mean that everything was designed -everything was design -so finding not design to compare it with might prove impossible.
What should be sought is evidence of a self-awareness and intent associated with and responsible for all design .....but, given our perspective, that would be left to the discretion of the designer.
It would essentially require that the universe and whatever else may be beyond say "I AM" -and then prove it -to all individuals.
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
Biblical prophecy contains a perfectly accurate and quite detailed outline of human history (though what is written was purposefully made to require an in-depth study).
The fact that it was recorded beforehand -coupled with all of human experience -is evidence of "I AM" -a self-awareness which made available proof of extreme power and preexisting intent -but the greatest evidence will be revealed to all later -when the rest of what is written comes to pass.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
So the better assumption is that the software accidentally wrote itself for no particular reason?
Similarly of course humans have redundant features left over from earlier versions, that's part of the design process as you point out.
i.e. observing significant design improvements in no way suggest that these improvements spontaneously arose by accident
Last edited:
If you see design in everything, how can you say it has been designed if you cannot possiby compare it with something that it has not been designed?
Ciao
- viole
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
To summarize....
I see design in everything because there is design in everything.
There is no comparison necessary for that.
However, crediting a self-awareness with the design of all requires evidence of that self-awareness and proof of responsibility.
If a self-awareness is responsible for the design of all things, comparison would require understanding the state of irreducibility of that self-awareness and all things -if comparison is at all possible, because that which was not designed would be the quiescent irreducible state which existed before the first self-aware act. If self-aware action/design have been eternally continuous somehow -comparison could not be possible (except to contrast an imaginary reality which could not exist with the reality which did exist).
To clarify...
There is no question that everything is designed in a broad sense.
There is not doubt that the features of life forms are designed for various purposes.
Everything is obviously designed -that is not the issue. The issue is self-awareness.
It may seem strange to think that design can exist without self-awareness -and perhaps there is truth to that -but that is exactly what we claim is happening by evolution.
(Our legs, for example and referencing the original post, are designed to give us mobility. We credit evolution with being the non-self-aware intelligence or program that is responsible for the design of all the features of life. There is input, processing and output involved. There very much is intent -intention and purpose -involved -but evolution in and of itself is not aware of its own intent. There is no self-aware intent immediately apparent.)
There is, however, doubt among people as to whether or not there is a self-aware designer who intended that all things be as they are -or some other self-aware designer which preceded earthly life and might possibly be partly responsible for the design of earthly life.
Humans -given their present state -may not be able to obtain the necessary data to compare design (which is apparent) with not design -either because we are not yet capable, or because not design is nonexistent.
Design is obviously inherent to the universe. Self-aware design is obviously present in the universe.
The questions are whether or not self-aware design is inherent to the universe -responsible for the universe -and whether or not self-awareness is inherent at least to initiation of design.
For example.... If evolution is a non-self-aware intelligence which designs...... but which was itself designed by a self-aware intelligence.... Proof of the self-aware designer might require that the self-aware designer reveal itself, claim and prove responsibility -because we are incapable, given our limited abilities, of collecting enough data otherwise.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
If you've never seen anything not-desgined, then how do you know anything you are looking can't be not-designed?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Because it is obviously designed -but let me explain....
I understand that what I'm saying might not be expressed well -and I don't know if there are terms for what I am talking about.
When I say designed here, I am separating the process of design from a self-aware designer -because design does not require self-awareness -at least at some point, or in microcosm.
For example... we can write a program which designs and does not need further input. It may even be aware of its environment through various sensors, and use that data to make design choices.
The Big Bang -or whatever -was a program (a planned series of future events -regardless of self-awareness, or what we call intent, the nature of the Big Bang defined the plan/blueprint for what followed) which designed the elements, the universe, etc. -and some credit it with producing life, evolution and, in turn, intelligent designers (humans).
One could use the term "design" loosely in saying that one is in awe of the design of the universe -even if they do not believe it was intended beforehand by a self-awareness.
With that use of "design", everything was designed because it is the result of that which preceded it -and something has design because it has various characteristics, attributes, functions, etc.
More to write, but have to go.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
In the original post, examples are given for consideration -but the fact that human activity was involved also deserves consideration.
There actually is a grand design to the software product -and that is the overall purpose of that product.
However, it was not the product of one self-aware grand designer able to anticipate all future events and write a complete program which would never need to be modified.
If God was a self-aware grand designer able to anticipate all future events -being all-knowledgeable and responsible for all future events, etc. (activity being equal to memory, knowledge, processing ability, etc., as it continued), God would have been capable of producing a complete program which did a specific set of things and did not need modification -or one which was complete and comprehensive even as it was modified to do an ever-increasing set of things.
However, God would also be capable of producing a program which could, in turn, produce things he could not anticipate by choosing not to anticipate them, and giving the powers of decision and design to the program.
God could also give the program awareness and self-awareness, self-determination -sensing outwardly and inwardly -and even designing outwardly and inwardly.
The grand design would then be for God to self-replicate/reproduce himself -to create more creators for the very purpose of not being able to anticipate their creations.
There actually is a grand design to the software product -and that is the overall purpose of that product.
However, it was not the product of one self-aware grand designer able to anticipate all future events and write a complete program which would never need to be modified.
If God was a self-aware grand designer able to anticipate all future events -being all-knowledgeable and responsible for all future events, etc. (activity being equal to memory, knowledge, processing ability, etc., as it continued), God would have been capable of producing a complete program which did a specific set of things and did not need modification -or one which was complete and comprehensive even as it was modified to do an ever-increasing set of things.
However, God would also be capable of producing a program which could, in turn, produce things he could not anticipate by choosing not to anticipate them, and giving the powers of decision and design to the program.
God could also give the program awareness and self-awareness, self-determination -sensing outwardly and inwardly -and even designing outwardly and inwardly.
The grand design would then be for God to self-replicate/reproduce himself -to create more creators for the very purpose of not being able to anticipate their creations.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Can't really respond in full right now, but it doesn't appear obvious to me that any given rock is designed. Is there something in all the rocks that make it obvious to you that they were all chosen specifically for their design and function?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Chosen beforehand by an intelligent self-aware designer?
Yes -there is something in the rocks that makes it obvious to ME that they were all chosen specifically for their design and function -by referencing many other things, considering myself in relation to the rocks, etc.
In the rocks themselves alone? No. However, any given rock is not -and all rocks collectively are not -alone, and can not be alone. They can be considered alone, but that would be incomplete data. We can say rocks are just rocks -but they are not just rocks because there are not just rocks.
Though rocks may have been designed by a self-aware intelligence for a specific purpose beforehand, and there may very well be something in the rocks that should or would make it obvious at some point, it cannot become obvious without reference. It cannot become obvious if one considers the rocks alone.
We know absolutely that A purpose for rocks is that they be something we walk on.
We also know absolutely that WE did not design and purpose rocks before we existed -that we might walk on them.
We know absolutely that rocks -and even elements -CAN be designed for a specific purpose beforehand by an intelligent self-aware designer.
Some humans have done that.
We know absolutely that due to our present state, we cannot presently reference all things.
If rocks have been designed by a self-aware intelligence for a specific purpose beforehand, that would become apparent eventually -if we became able to reference enough. Even if we could not reference the designer firsthand, enough data would reveal the necessity for its existence to have produced what could be referenced.
The same would be true for the non-existence of a designer -enough data would absolutely reveal such.
The difficulty is that design decisions may be extremely far removed from results -because things can be accomplished by chain reaction.
We design rocks, but we may yet prove absolutely that there was no decision involved in the formation of rocks from the Big Bang until the first conscious decision to act upon a rock by earthly life -but that would not prove that rocks were not produced by a conscious decision to cause a chain reaction for a specific reason prior to the Big Bang.
As with anything, if only one or some had reference enough, others would still not have that reference.
Reference is gained over time and individually. Data can be shared, but not necessarily reproduced or verified by every individual, as some perfectly-accurate data refers to unusual arrangements which cannot be reproduced by individuals.
That which produces unusual arrangements exceeds the ability of individuals to reproduce them.