Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

No need to feed the troll… it just gives him a new opportunity to regurgitate his nonsense. Observe, that no matter how hard you try to get an answer to distinguish between “designed” and “natural”, you will never get a meaningful answer. Or if there is anything natural in the first place…

The descent to abuse continues combined with an irrational argument based entirely on the obscurity of the term “natural”…

At least the purposeful puppy is enjoying himself and developing his muscles whereas the purposeless puppy is just wasting his time and energy…

 

[Sair]

The slightest knowledge of science disposes of that assertion…

The purposeless dog is determined to continue to chase its purposeless tail!

If the designer is truly intelligent, why does the dog continue to chase its tail to no purpose?

I suppose, if one were entirely anthropocentric, then one might assume the dog chases its tail in order to alert its human to some problem in the dog’s behaviour and underlying mental state…

 

[tonyrey]

If the designer is truly intelligent, why does the dog continue to chase its tail to no purpose?

I suppose, if one were entirely anthropocentric, then one might assume the dog chases its tail in order to alert its human to some problem in the dog’s behaviour and underlying mental state…

I have unwittingly anticipated that question in my previous post.

One could also ask why intelligent individuals proclaim all activity is fundamentally purposeless - thereby defeating the purpose of their proclamation!

 

[Sair]

No need to feed the troll… it just gives him a new opportunity to regurgitate his nonsense. Observe, that no matter how hard you try to get an answer to distinguish between “designed” and “natural”, you will never get a meaningful answer. Or if there is anything natural in the first place…

On the one hand, I’m not prepared to concede that Tonyrey is trolling - I think he sincerely believes what he posts, and is just seeking the form of words that effectively expresses that belief.

On the other hand, I am inclined to agree that I will never get an answer that actually addresses the points I’m attempting to make, largely because they are anathema to any supernaturalist…

 

[tonyrey]

On the one hand, I’m not prepared to concede that Tonyrey is trolling - I think he sincerely believes what he posts, and is just seeking the form of words that effectively expresses that belief.

On the other hand, I am inclined to agree that I will never get an answer that actually addresses the points I’m attempting to make, largely because they are anathema to any supernaturalist…

There are many points in my posts you have failed to address - without giving any reason for not doing so…

Your present post doesn’t further the discussion in any way whatsoever.

I challenge you to present one question I have failed to address.

 

[Sair]

That’s to make you double up with laughter! We need some humour when confronted with the dreary negativism of non-Designers. It makes you wonder what purpose they see in life - apart from attempting to prove their lives are purposeless…

Oh, please - what could possibly be more depressing than the idea that the pains and indignities of life were intended by a conscious being?

At least if we suppose that things like cancer and dementia and the manifold genetic disorders that present in humans - not to mention the deep-seated inequalities of opportunity amongst human communities that result in some humans being obscenely wealthy and others experiencing abject poverty and despair - are the result of unintentional circumstance, rather than direct planning on the part of a divine overseer, then we can still laugh at ourselves, suppose it could be different if only we made the effort to change it, and salvage some positive pleasure from the uncertainties of life.

If you want dreary negativism, you can always rely upon a religious believer…

 

[Sair]

There are many points in my posts you have failed to address - without giving any reason for not doing so…

Your present post doesn’t further the discussion in any way whatsoever.

I challenge you to present one question I have failed to address.

One question - why do you assume that, given our imperfect knowledge of nature, there must be a ‘supernature’, a level above that which we can discern through experience and scientific endeavour?

And, actually, a second question - is there anything other than the incompleteness of scientific knowledge that leads you to assume supernatural design? And if there is, is it something other than a Catholic upbringing?

And, okay - actually a third question that I don’t feel has been adequately addressed - why do you think purpose has to come from beyond our natural human experience? Why does it have to be eternal in order to matter?

 

[tonyrey]

That’s to make you double up with laughter! We need some humour when confronted with the dreary negativism of non-Designers. It makes you wonder what purpose they see in life - apart from attempting to prove their lives are purposeless…

You obviously expect to have everything for nothing…

At least if we suppose that things like cancer and dementia and the manifold genetic disorders that present in humans…

How could all disorder be prevented in an immensely complex world?

… not to mention the deep-seated inequalities of opportunity amongst human communities that result in some humans being obscenely wealthy and others experiencing abject poverty and despair - are the result of unintentional circumstance, rather than direct planning on the part of a divine overseer…

There is no attribution of responsibility to human beings - predictably from a person who believes we are biological machines.

… then we can still laugh at ourselves, suppose it could be different if only we made the effort to change it, and salvage some positive pleasure from the uncertainties of life.

“can” makes no sense for biological machines because it implies freedom of choice.

If you want dreary negativism, you can always rely upon a religious believer…

When the choice is between Design and non-Design it is quite clear where the dreary negativism is located…

 

[Trurl]

I detect a raw nerve! A descent to abuse is not a valid substitute for a rational argument…

No, it is not a “raw nerve”, it is exasperation to see the same poor dead horse being flogged over and over again. So far you refuse to answer the fundametal question: “how do you differentiate between designed and undesigned (natural)”? (Is it really true that you don’t even know what natural is???) Until you can give a meaningful answer, there can be no discussion, since you did not present anything worth to discuss.

And, no, it is not abuse to call a TOPIC stupid. I did not call YOU stupid. (I MAY think it, but that would only be my internal, undisclosed opinion) But if you take the adjective upon yourself, then it is your problem, not mine. Maybe there us a raw nerve in action there?

 

[tonyrey]

I detect a raw nerve! A descent to abuse is not a valid substitute for a rational argument…

 

[Trurl]

I have answered that question many times if you take the trouble to glance at previous threads on Design.

I am not interseted in reading through 1000+ posts. If you did it there, state it here and now. Until you come clean, there is nothing to discuss. Present the algorithm to apply when you look are two objects, and decide that object “A” was designed, and object “B” was not-designed. (Since you don’t even know what natural is, I will use the word not-designed.)

And do not even think about your usual tactics, instead of giving an answer, you try to present a question. It will not work. If you cannot answer, or do not wish to answer, so be it. But at least be intellectually honest, and say it. (Oh, and that was not an insult either).

 

[Sair]

To equate “undesigned” with “natural” is an excellent example of the fallacy of begging the question - based on blind faith in materialism.

Actually, I don’t equate ‘undesigned’ with ‘natural’ - I’m quite happy to suppose that anything conceived and made by humans, for example, is designed and also natural; and a bowerbird’s nest is also designed and natural…I could go on.

What I still don’t understand is how supernaturalists distinguish between natural and supernatural design…or even, actually, how ‘design’ is defined. Please enlighten me - but don’t pretend that preconception cancels out natural design!

 

[tonyrey]

I am not interseted in reading through 1000+ posts.

I used the term “glance”. The very first post would be sufficient.

If you did it there, state it here and now. Until you come clean, there is nothing to discuss. Present the algorithm to apply when you look are two objects, and decide that object “A” was designed, and object “B” was not-designed. (Since you don’t even know what natural is, I will use the word not-designed.)

A child can give you that answer - if you cannot be bothered to read one post.

And do not even think about your usual tactics, instead of giving an answer, you try to present a question. It will not work. If you cannot answer, or do not wish to answer, so be it. But at least be intellectually honest, and say it. (Oh, and that was not an insult either).

Argumentum ad hominem…

 

[Trurl]

A child can give you that answer - if you cannot be bothered to read one post.

I am not interested in a child’s answer. I am interested in your algorithm, here and now. You have two objects in front of you, one is designed, and the other is not. How do you tell which one is which. What attributes are you looking at? Or, is there anything at all, what is not-designed? One example, please.

Argumentum ad hominem…

Obviously you don’t even know what that means.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, I don’t equate ‘undesigned’ with ‘natural’ - I’m quite happy to suppose that anything conceived and made by humans, for example, is designed and also natural; and a bowerbird’s nest is also designed and natural…I could go on.

 

[tonyrey]

A child can give you that answer - if you cannot be bothered to read one post.

If you read my post to Sair - who knows how to discuss the issue courteously - you will find the answer.

                                                             O

Argumentum ad hominem…

Obviously you don’t even know what that means.

A further argumentum ad hominem! - which takes no one nowhere…

 

[Trurl]

If you read my post to Sair - who knows how to discuss the issue courteously - you will find the answer.

Nope. There is no algorithm there. There is NOT one example of something non-designed.

You presented your usual opinion (nothing more) :“The immense value, beauty and complexity of the universe, nature and rational beings are conclusive evidence they are not accidents which exist for no reason or purpose.”

There is no value in a tsunami. There is no beauty in a leprosy-ridden body. The assumed “complexity” is just your view. None of it is evidence for anything. When push comes to shove, it boils down to “complexity” - which is not an inherent property, merely an indicator or your lack of knowledge.

Stll evading the question. You look at two objects, one is designed, one is not. How can you tell the difference? I am getting curious… when will you give an answer, or admit that you do not have an answer? (My current bet is: “never”.)

 

[ManRay]

I tell you - even If I did believe in the ludicrous god concept - I’d probably be pretty upset that this is what an all powerful, all knowing, all perfect creator came up with. Maybe that’s the point…peel the onion. Think about the world, and then think about a force that exists that created it (even though we can’t really logically do that - but I’m playing the game)…seriously…It’s beyond stupid. It’s supernaturally stupid.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nope. There is no algorithm there. There is NOT one example of something non-designed.

You presented your usual opinion (nothing more) :“The immense value, beauty and complexity of the universe, nature and rational beings are conclusive evidence they are not accidents which exist for no reason or purpose.”

There is no value in a tsunami. There is no beauty in a leprosy-ridden body. The assumed “complexity” is just your view. None of it is evidence for anything. When push comes to shove, it boils down to “complexity” - which is not an inherent property, merely an indicator or your lack of knowledge.

Stll evading the question. You look at two objects, one is designed, one is not. How can you tell the difference? I am getting curious… when will you give an answer, or admit that you do not have an answer? (My current bet is: “never”.)

The question is misguided. We are not talking about the design of objects but of systems. The organizing and developmentally-directed principles of the universe are strongly indicative of an intended structure.

By this understanding of design, then, there is no “undesigned” object to speak of. The very physical laws that bring objects into existence (which are constrained to astronomically narrow parameters) are the design.

By all materialistic accounts, the most likely (and almost certain) course of development from the Big Bang would have been instantaneous collapse with no formation of matter.

To stop all explanation of the material world at the laws of nature is arbitrary. They explain the phenomena they produce, but they do not suffice to explain their own existence.

 

[ManRay]

Existence in an axiom. It needs no proof or explanation.

The question is misguided. We are not talking about the design of objects but of systems. The organizing and developmentally-directed principles of the universe are strongly indicative of an intended structure.

By this understanding of design, then, there is no “undesigned” object to speak of. The very physical laws that bring objects into existence (which are constrained to astronomically narrow parameters) are the design.

By all materialistic accounts, the most likely (and almost certain) course of development from the Big Bang would have been instantaneous collapse with no formation of matter.

To stop all explanation of the material world at the laws of nature is arbitrary. They explain the phenomena they produce, but they do not suffice to explain their own existence.