Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

Blind faith in the creative power of time and fortuitous events is the unsubstantiated, unverifiable and self-contradictory foundation of materialism which presupposes the power of reasoning…

Materialism is also inadequate, inconsistent, incoherent, unintelligible, unfalsifiable, uninformative and self-destructive! Only a lunatic would live as if everything is composed solely of atomic particles…

 

[Candide_West]

Not so fast. *There is a difference between natural patterns and designed ones. *Getting back to designs. *They always contain patterns. *Patterns do not contain designs, or symbols or language. Further, desins always require a designer.

Ok, so what is the difference between a designed pattern and a natural one? Obviously simple probability in not sufficient.*

So again. will you accept a probability bound? *If we throw the cards up 10 times and each and every time they land ace to 2 by suit what do you conclude?

No, there is no probability bound, we know this for the very reason you stated so eloquently*

“No - patterns are complicated and not all of them are designed.”

So it is not possible to determine from observing the complexity or probability of an outcome if that outcome was designed or not. Hence there cannot be such a thing as a probability bound.*

 

[tonyrey]

zro_x:

If we didn’t know we had reasoning power we wouldn’t even try to reason!

unless we didn’t know that we couldn’t reason… which we wouldn’t.

If we didn’t know we can reason we wouldn’t make any effort to reason! We would allow our impulses and instincts to dominate our behaviour. Like animals we wouldn’t have any logical principles or rules of thought by which to decide what is true or false.

You are also assuming we could be rational in a mindless universe without having explained the precise physical mechanisms by which that incredible feat could be accomplished.

Simply that there is conclusive evidence for

Design! We all have to decide for ourselves what is the explanation of Design but that is a topic for a different thread.

I see. then perhaps I should have said,"you can’t conclude that a designer is responsible for thoughts just because science can’t provide an explanation for them.

No one is entitled to use the term “designer” even with conclusive evidence for Design. The source of Design is another question altogether - which requires a different thread. It would be a good sequel to this thread…

Whether reason is a reality or a fantasy is fundamental because we are wasting our time and energy if it is a fantasy. Not being the only issue is taken for granted and it’s logical to begin at the beginning.

fair enough.

We’re making good progress!

Giving a name doesn’t explain **how **

molecules reach valid conclusions about the world.You asked for a scientific explanation of how science could explain science. I just gave you that explanation. I don’t need to explain how molecules can reach valid conclusions about the world around them, because it is possible, not necessary but possible, that science will be able to explain it in the future.

A possibility is not a valid basis for a rational conclusion. We should accept the most adequate explanation rather than rely on a preconceived notion like “Everything consists of molecules.”

But just as some food for thought, robots are becoming increasingly aware of the world around them. We can imagine that they may eventually become indistinguishable from human beings, and all they are is programming.

Robots are designed! “imagine” is indeed all that argument amounts to…

Again the question is how

events in the brain explain events in the mindI realize that it is difficult to see how physical events can give rise to a mental cause, but it is just as difficult to see how mental events can give rise to a physical cause! Yet this is what we accept as catholics.

Only a fool thinks we could ever understand the ultimate nature of reality! It is enough to know from personal experience that the power of the mind is superior to the power of purposeless molecules. We don’t rely on things to make our decisions for us…

We wouldn’t even be entitled to refer to "our " consciousness!

yes we would. If materialism is true, than our consciousness is the only thing that is truly ours.

In an entirely material universe there would be no “selves”. “Ours” and “ourselves” wouldn’t refer to anything except bodies and bodies without selves don’t belong to anything. They are just things that exist.

 

[buffalo]

Ok, so what is the difference between a designed pattern and a natural one? Obviously simple probability in not sufficient.*

No, there is no probability bound, we know this for the very reason you stated so eloquently*

“No - patterns are complicated and not all of them are designed.”

So it is not possible to determine from observing the complexity or probability of an outcome if that outcome was designed or not. Hence there cannot be such a thing as a probability bound.*

Natural pattern - sand ripples on a beach, snowflakes.

Designed pattern - symbols.

Here the rubber meets the road … So you are unwilling to admit that throwing cards up and all 10 times they land ace to 2 by suit would be designed? To maintain your a priori position you just can’t bring yourself to even admit that.

Give me a number where you admit to design? 100 times, 1000, 1,000,000.?

 

[Candide_West]

Natural pattern - sand ripples on a beach, snowflakes.

Designed pattern - symbols.

So, what is the difference between a designed pattern and a natural pattern which allows us to tell them apart?*

Here the rubber meets the road … *So you are unwilling to admit that throwing cards up and all 10 times they land ace to 2 by suit would be designed? *To maintain your a priori position you just can’t bring yourself to even admit that. *

Give me a number where you admit to design? *100 times, 1000, 1,000,000.?

We’ve covered this. You stated it yourself - patterns can be complicated and designed of complicated and undesigned. So we cannot tell from complexity or probability alone if a pattern was designed.*

If we did use some kind of probability bound then both snowflakes and sand ripples on a beach would vastly exceed it and we’d be forced to conclude that they were both designed. And as you’ve already noted, they were not.

 

[tonyrey]

Materialism is also inadequate, inconsistent, incoherent, unintelligible, unfalsifiable, uninformative and self-destructive! Only a lunatic would live as if everything is composed solely of atomic particles…

Of course many materialists won’t admit they are materialists but anyone who rejects Design has no other option. If rational activity is not independent of matter it follows inexorably that it is a product of matter. Bertrand Russell toyed with the idea of “neutral monism” but no one - as far as I know - seems to have followed in his footsteps. It leaves unsolved the problem of how mind and matter have always co-existed…

 

[buffalo]

So, what is the difference between a designed pattern and a natural pattern which allows us to tell them apart?*

We’ve covered this. You stated it yourself - patterns can be complicated and designed of complicated and undesigned. So we cannot tell from complexity or probability alone if a pattern was designed.*

If we did use some kind of probability bound then both snowflakes and sand ripples on a beach would vastly exceed it and we’d be forced to conclude that they were both designed. And as you’ve already noted, they were not.

Designed patterns always have ideas, represented through a code.

You are avoiding a direct question.

Again - Here the rubber meets the road … So you are unwilling to admit that throwing cards up and all 10 times they land ace to 2 by suit would be designed? To maintain your a priori position you just can’t bring yourself to even admit that.

Give me a number where you admit to design? 100 times, 1000, 1,000,000.?

 

[zro_x]

Designed patterns always have ideas, represented through a code.

You are avoiding a direct question.

Again - Here the rubber meets the road … So you are unwilling to admit that throwing cards up and all 10 times they land ace to 2 by suit would be designed? To maintain your a priori position you just can’t bring yourself to even admit that.

Give me a number where you admit to design? 100 times, 1000, 1,000,000.?

your analogy doesn’t work. It is possible that the cards have been thrown up and have landed in some wierd complex pattern that is not Ace to 2. Why do you keep insisting that this is not the case?

 

[buffalo]

your analogy doesn’t work. It is possible that the cards have been thrown up and have landed in some wierd complex pattern that is not Ace to 2. Why do you keep insisting that this is not the case?

Because that is the example I want answered. Are you also going to not come to terms with a UPB?

 

[zro_x]

Because that is the example I want answered. Are you also going to not come to terms with a UPB?

all right, I’ll answer your question. If I saw that the cards landed Ace to two every time I threw them up, I would be pretty dumbfounded and I honestly wouldn’t know what to think. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that someone designed them to behave that way.

I don’t know what UPB is.

 

[zro_x]

@ tonyrey

sorry, but I’ll have to get back to you latter. I have some place I need to be right now.

 

[buffalo]

all right, I’ll answer your question. If I saw that the cards landed Ace to two every time I threw them up, I would be pretty dumbfounded and I honestly wouldn’t know what to think. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that someone designed them to behave that way.

I don’t know what UPB is.

Ok - how about 1,00 times in a row.

 

[tonyrey]

Ok - how about 1,00 times in a row.

It is often overlooked - or not known - that complexity in this context is a **series **of patterns, not an isolated pattern.

 

[Candide_West]

Designed patterns always have ideas, represented through a code. *

And what do you look for to find out if a pattern has an idea in it? And how do you tell the difference between a designed idea and everything else?*

You are avoiding a direct question. *

Again - Here the rubber meets the road … *So you are unwilling to admit *that throwing cards up and all 10 times they land ace to 2 by suit would *be designed? *To maintain your a priori position you just can’t bring *yourself to even admit that. *

Give me a number where you admit to design? *100 times, 1000, 1,000,000.?

That’s because there isn’t an answer to the question. If an interaction which appears to be random regularly produces a non-random result then the interaction is probably not random but that doesn’t mean it was designed.*

Again, as per your previous statement patterns can be complex and designed or complex and undesigned.*

 

[zro_x]

If we didn’t know we can reason we wouldn’t make any effort to reason! We would allow our impulses and instincts to dominate our behaviour. Like animals we wouldn’t have any logical principles or rules of thought by which to decide what is true or false.

a valid point. I guess that means we can strike possibility one off the list.

1. We may not have reasoning powers at all, in which case everything we know is worthless.

which means that if naturalism is true, it must be through possibility two.

1. It is possible that we are able to reach correct conclusions about the universe without resorting to spiritual rationality. We would essentially be biological computers, and we wouldn’t have responsibility for our own thoughts, but it is a possibility.

You are also assuming we could be rational in a mindless universe without having explained the precise physical mechanisms by which that incredible feat could be accomplished.

Okay, perhaps I should have said,“you can’t conclude that thoughts are designed just because science can’t provide an explanation for them.”

A possibility is not a valid basis for a rational conclusion.

I’m not coming to any rational conclusion, whether for design or against it. I’m saying that we can’t conclude anything from what we know.

Robots are designed! “imagine” is indeed all that argument amounts to…

The point that I’m trying to make here is that robots, though their thought processes are purely physical electrical impulses, they may eventually become indistinguishable from human beings.

Only a fool thinks we could ever understand the ultimate nature of reality! It is enough to know from personal experience that the power of the mind is superior to the power of purposeless molecules. We don’t rely on things to make our decisions for us…

Exactly how do we know this? you are basically saying that we know from experience that the mind gives rise to physical causes, rather than physical things giving rise to the mental cause. But the truth is that we can’t know this from experience.

In an entirely material universe there would be no “selves”. “Ours” and “ourselves” wouldn’t refer to anything except bodies and bodies without selves don’t belong to anything. They are just things that exist.

no, selves would refer to our conscious experience, which we have even if naturalism is true.

 

[buffalo]

And what do you look for to find out if a pattern has an idea in it? And how do you tell the difference between a designed idea and everything else?*

That’s because there isn’t an answer to the question. If an interaction which appears to be random regularly produces a non-random result then the interaction is probably not random but that doesn’t mean it was designed.*

Again, as per your previous statement patterns can be complex and designed or complex and undesigned.*

Language, symbols, maps, plans, music and instructions are designed.

So if we plan to communicate an idea it is by design.

Right - it is probably not random. So the meter starts moving away from random toward what? Oh, but it cannot be design now can it?

http://read.pudn.com/downloads90/so...ocos-rtt-1.2.1/doc/xml/images/AnalogMeter.png

Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Random (BUC)

 

[buffalo]

a valid point. I guess that means we can strike possibility one off the list.

which means that if naturalism is true, it must be through possibility two.

Okay, perhaps I should have said,“you can’t conclude that thoughts are designed just because science can’t provide an explanation for them.”

I’m not coming to any rational conclusion, whether for design or against it. I’m saying that we can’t conclude anything from what we know.

The point that I’m trying to make here is that robots, though their thought processes are purely physical electrical impulses, they may eventually become indistinguishable from human beings.

Exactly how do we know this? you are basically saying that we know from experience that the mind gives rise to physical causes, rather than physical things giving rise to the mental cause. But the truth is that we can’t know this from experience.

no, selves would refer to our conscious experience, which we have even if naturalism is true.

The problem is one must take the position we can know all there is to know. We can observe all there is to observe. We can sense all there is to sense.

We already know we cannot.

 

[zro_x]

We should accept the most adequate explanation rather than rely on a preconceived notion like “Everything consists of molecules.”

ahhh… I believe I see what you mean now. When you can’t reach an absolute conclusion you have to figure out which of the two explanations are most probable and base the way you live your life off of that. your stance is that since science can’t provide an adequate explanation for conscious experience, design is the most probable explanation. I would disagree. here’s why:

Ok - how about 1,00 times in a row.

nope, it still wouldn’t make a difference. Consider your snowflake. Hundreds of years ago, when snowflakes were first discovered, a proponent of intelligent design would have said something along the lines of: “Look! though each snowflake varries slightly, each one has a basic hexagonal structure. What are the odds of that? Its like rolling a dice and each time coming up with a six. Someone must have designed it that way!” Later we discovered that the reason has to do with the molecular geometry of water. I really don’t care how many times you throw the cards. If they keep landing the same way, I’m going to look for a natural reason first before I start looking for a supernatural one.

And that’s why, Tony, that you can’t say that intelligent design is more probable than naturalism because naturalism doesn’t yet know how consciousness comes from matter.

 

[zro_x]

Language, symbols, maps, plans, music and instructions are designed.

So if we plan to communicate an idea it is by design.

Right - it is probably not random. So the meter starts moving away from random toward what? Oh, but it cannot be design now can it?

http://read.pudn.com/downloads90/so...ocos-rtt-1.2.1/doc/xml/images/AnalogMeter.png

false dichotomy. the meter might point away from radomness toward natural explanations, rather than design

Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Random (BUC)

false dichotomy. the meter might point away from radomness toward natural explanations, rather than design

 

[Candide_West]

Language, symbols, maps, plans, music and instructions are designed.

Yes, they are designed by humans. This is well established by evidence. DNA was not designed by humans and thus far you have not identified any evidence that it was designed at all. Again do you know of any evidence?

So if we plan to communicate an idea it is by design. *

Sure, so what evidence is there of plans to communicate an idea other than by humans? Again, how do we detect ideas from patterns?*

Right - it is probably not random. *So the meter starts moving away from random toward what? *Oh, but it cannot be design now can it?

The meter goes from random to non-random (the opposite of random). Remember the sand ripples on a beach are very far from the random end of the scale and yet they are not designed (as you said) so you have already acknowledged that the other end of the scale cannot be “designed”.