The universe also consists of persons - some of whom cannot distinguish persons from objects…
The rejection of the fine tuning argument is a mental game played by those who are determined to prove purposeful activity is an illusion, thereby cutting off the branch on which they base their conclusions.
Those statements apply par excellence to the self-refuting hypothesis that everything and everyone consist solely of atomic particles. What is the evidence?
A superb post which deserves careful study!If there were never any evidence of intelligent activity there would be no reason to believe intelligent activity exists! Everything - in the mind of the materialist - is reducible to physical causality. No wonder he cannot find any evidence!
Just because you are unable to see them it does not mean that they do not exist. How do you know that those stalactites and stalagmites are “inanimate”? Their lifespan is about 100 million years so one second of their life equals a 100 years for us. As such if you spent all your life observing them you would not be able see any activity. But that does not mean that there is no activity. How can you tell is something is inanimate or not? (Another question which you will be unable to answer.)
Beauty is only in the eyes of the beholder. Value is only in the eyes of the seller and the buyer.
Oh, you poor simpleton, I am not assuming anything, and I did not present any argument either. Seems that you are unable to tell the difference between an argument and a question. Hint: “the question has a question mark (?) at the end”. Capisci?
If I see a what looks like a message and have the key it is designed. I would also look for complex specified information. The greater the CSI the greater the probability of it being designed.
What key? There is no “key”.
Complex or simple exists only in the eyes of the investigator (Poor tony is unable to comprehend this - but then again he cannot tell the difference between an argument and a question.
). They are not an inherent property of the object. In the problem I presented, there is this “seemingly natural vegetation”. In reality it was all grown in a lab by some aliens, who wanted to “terraform” that planet, for later occupation. They seeded the planet a few hundred thousand years ago; went away and did not return yet. All the signs of their visit is obliterated.That’s interesting, given we still have a lot of genetic research to go to find out what messages if any are happening at the gene level in some instances, and we don’t have any key yet.
An infringement of the forum conduct rules which reveals more about your personality than the subject being discussed and does not further the discussion in any respect whatsoever.
Except the truth of materialism.
You have certainly hit the nail on the head there! Undiluted negativity!
A further infringement of the forum conduct rules which reveals more about your personality than the subject being discussed and does not further the discussion in any respect whatsoever.
A false assertion which reveals more about your personality than the subject being discussed and does not further the discussion in any respect whatsoever.
Is it against the rules to feel sorry for someone? Can’t help it.
)You touch upon an important point. Inside our frame of reference we may not be able to know for sure if it was designed. We would need information from outside the frame. (Revelation provides us information from outside our frame)What key? There is no “key”.
Complex or simple exists only in the eyes of the investigator (Poor tony is unable to comprehend this - but then again he cannot tell the difference between an argument and a question.
The vegetation is “artificial” and “designed” in the sense that it was “lab-grown”. How can you tell?
By the way, we do not even have to go out onto another planet. How can you tell if a corn has been genetically engineered in a lab, or it was the result of a random, natural mutation?
The answer to both questions: “you cannot”. Think about it.
Well, we might get somewhere.
We may not know for sure… you say. Revelation cannot play any part here, since we are talking about a fully secular problem: can we differentiate between a “natural” object and an “artifact”. As we seem to agree we do not even have to go to some alien planet to find ourselves in trouble. There is no way to find out if a new corn was the result of an artificial, conscious, designed, genetically engineered process, or a random mutation. Of course, if you would deny that there is such thing as a random, undesigned mutation, then we would be at standstill, and there would be no reason to continue. If you would assert (and I don’t think you do) that everything is designed, then we could fold, since in that case there would be no such thing as “undesinged” and as such the word “designed” would lose its meaning.Not, not always. And the languages are NOT designed. A human language comes from many minds. And none of the human languages (except Esperanto - and it never took off the gound either) is the product of a conscious design process. They developed haphazardly, randomly without any conscious overseer to monitor and “design” the process. Bees have a very complex and sophisticated “language”, which most definitely does NOT come from a mind. They “dance”, and with their “dance” they convey very precise information about a newly discovered feeding ground, they transmit the direction and the distance to the new field. No one would argue that this language is the result of conscious, designed development process.
Human codes are designed entities. Computer languages are designed entities. We know that - because we designed them. We do not have to rely on any extra information, because we have first hand, actual information about the development of codes. It is easy to look at a human made object and declare, a la Paley’s watch that we already know that they were designed, and declare: “Aha! here is a designed artifact”. The problem is when you have no extra information, and you can only rely on observing the “gadget” and find out if it was natural or designed. The hypothetical vegetation on that alien planet shows the problem very clearly. No, in that case you cannot make any estimate at all. Not just cannot be “sure”, but you cannot make an educated guess either.
We can call the DNA a “code” and a “language”, which is an anthropomorphization. Of course there are regularities in the DNA, but it could be called a very “strange” language. Its “sender” is the “parent” organism, its receiver is the “offspring”. But, just like the natural human languages are undesigned - and moreover, we KNOW that they are undesigned - there is no reason to assume a “designer”.
Trurl:
You need to tell that to the Evolutionary Biologist.
Irrelevant comic book story. That fact of the matter is, nothing that is natural is undesigned. Let me re-state that: Nothing that is natural is undesigned. Mankind projects undesignedness to things of his own causation. E.g., if a gaggle of men and women went to sleep tonight, and prior to losing consciousness, they each thought up some great, new invention - none of which existed - those would be things that are undesigned. I knew a young man who put together perhaps the first PC ever put made. (In fact, it had one tube on its chassis!) Before he put the chassis together, he worked out a drawing, placing each electronic part of the circuitry in it proper place, and all the wires and terminations. Prior to drawing it out on paper and putting it together, it was undesigned.
No. Vegetation is artificial if it is plastic or is created by man as a plant that had never existed before its instantiation. Then, at least one could say that it had a secondary maker.
Irrelevant comic book whatever.
Trurl:
That ain’t so. “Complexity” and “complexification” are words used throughout science to describe regularities, and irregularities, discovered by scientists. The words are fairly well defined so there’s no ambiguity. “Complexity” is “the state or quality of being intricate or complicated.” (OED online) “Complexification” means, “to make more intricate or complicated.” It could be said that there is a portion of a thing that is complex “in the eye of the beholder,” but, there are other comprehend-able portions that are considered complex by everyone. (Except you, of course. The smartest man [or woman] on Earth! )
Abiogenesis is one of those things that is complex enough to have prevented man from duplicating it in the lab. Evolution, another amendable theory, is so complex that the biologist is left with only the ability to postulate “evolutionary steps,” and this is one of the sciences that likes to use the words, “complexity” and “complexification” to a significant extent. The “Tree of Life” is an ontological assent in complexity, which no Evolutionist would deny.
Further, there is simplicity and complexity in the mathematics describing certain natural processes. E.g., The Ptolemaic “geocentric” theory compared with the Copernican “heliocentric” theory. In this unusual case, the more complicated was overthrown by the less complicated.
You need to tell that to the Evolutionary Biologist.
Irrelevant comic book story. That fact of the matter is, nothing that is natural is undesigned. Let me re-state that: Nothing that is natural is undesigned. Mankind projects undesignedness to things of his own causation. E.g., if a gaggle of men and women went to sleep tonight, and prior to losing consciousness, they each thought up some great, new invention - none of which existed - those would be things that are undesigned. I knew a young man who put together perhaps the first PC ever put made. (In fact, it had one tube on its chassis!) Before he put the chassis together, he worked out a drawing, placing each electronic part of the circuitry in it proper place, and all the wires and terminations. Prior to drawing it out on paper and putting it together, it was undesigned.
That is the meaning of “undesigned.” You have extrapolated that raw, un-molded material in nature into what you perceive to be undesigned. That is not how it works. Although each and every piece of lumber, brick and tile sitting on an unimproved lot is part of no apparent design, they have each been designed, and once the house is built, it too will have been designed. Thinking men and women are clear about the difference and these facts.
No. Vegetation is artificial if it is plastic or is created by man as a plant that had never existed before its instantiation. Then, at least one could say that it had a secondary maker.
Irrelevant comic book whatever.
God bless,
jd
Irrefutable! The entire non-Design argument is based on the unsubstantiated hypothesis that everything is ultimately purposeless in spite of the fact that everyone except lunatics lives as if life is purposeful. It is sheer nonsense to regard human languages as undesigned. They are the product of the** intention **to communicate with symbols to express thoughts, feelings and desires.
The topic is Design not the Designer. It is a philosophical interpretation of reality with metaphysical, epistemological, moral, personal and scientific evidence that it is most economical, cogent, comprehensive, verifiable and fertile explanation of the immense value, beauty, complexity and significance of the universe, nature and rational beings.
I’m pretty sure that everything that comes out of your keyboard is absolutely wrong. So wrong that it may seem like it makes sense to some people.
The DNA language is passing information back and forth all the time. The receiver must have the key to decipher it. Just because we don’t means nothing. Codes are called codes for a reason.That’s interesting, given we still have a lot of genetic research to go to find out what messages if any are happening at the gene level in some instances, and we don’t have any key yet.
You’d then have to say, that’s not designed - you have no message, (we don’t know what if anything a particular gene is responsible for) and no key.
But you claim the very complexity of the genetic world, proves it’s designed
Sarah x