Conclusive evidence for Design!

[zro_x]

Even if God did not exist you are denying the computer was designed?

In the full sense of the term, yes. If naturalism is true, then we are not designed, but are entirely natural beings. Since the computer would be designed by completely natural beings, it would be natural as well.

 

[buffalo]

In the full sense of the term, yes. If naturalism is true, then we are not designed, but are entirely natural beings. Since the computer would be designed by completely natural beings, it would be natural as well.

But it would still be designed as your sentence states.

 

[zro_x]

But it would still be designed as your sentence states.

I guess, if you consider a series of electrochemical brainstates to be designing.

 

[buffalo]

Sure, but if you’re allowed to state what the “particular” result is after you perform the shuffle then this isn’t a problem.*

Actually I’m not saying anything about the origin of life here. I’m just demonstrating why the UPB cannot be used to detect design. If it turns up a false positive every time you randomly shuffle two decks of cards together then it’s clearly so unreliable as to be useless.*

I’m not sure what you are putting this forwards as a test of I’m afraid. The UPB tells us that if an outcome occurred and it was sufficiently unlikely to have occurred by chance then it must have been designed. ANY order of cards from mixing two decks together is sufficiently unlikely.*

There is no requirement in the UPB to have specified the outcome before the event. Otherwise nobody would be able to apply it to the evolution of life anyway (because we weren’t around before it started to specify an outcome).

Well theres part of the challenge right there, we don’t yet know just how “astronomically improbable” abiogenesis really is. Sure its unlikely on the scale of human events, but in all the trillions of planets in the universe, each with billions of tonnes of material mixing around, for billions of years… Well, that’s a lot of shuffles of the cards and we only need one result.

Again, we need to consider if there is enough time.

** Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more **

When Theory and Experiment Collide

…As other scientists have found with other enzymes, it turned out not to be a snap. The technical details are reported in a paper just published in BIO-Complexity. [2] Here we’ll keep it simple.

Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
Now, if I were a Darwinist a result like this would bother me. I’m sure some of my fellow Darwinists would try to dismiss it as irrelevant… but that would bother me all the more.
The excuse for shrugging it off would, I expect, be that the transition we examined isn’t actually one that anyone thinks occurred in the history of life. That’s true, but it badly misses the point. As Ann and I made clear in the paper, our aim wasn’t to replicate a historical transition, but rather to identify what ought to be a relatively easy transition and find out how hard or easy it really is. We put it this way in the paper [2]: Whether or not a particular conversion ever occurred as a paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it occurred if it did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the point is to identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to be among the most feasible …] and then to assess how feasible this innovation is.So, if I had a Darwinist alter ego, here’s the problem he’d be facing right now. To dismiss our study as irrelevant, he’d have to say (in effect) that he sees no inconsistency between these two assessments of the power of Darwin’s mechanism:

 

[buffalo]

I guess, if you consider a series of electrochemical brainstates to be designing.

If these brain states show plan or purpose then they are by definition designed.

 

[Trurl]

Then we should go back to the beginning of the thread and find out just how many times you did not answer direct questions yourself.

You are most welcome to dig. You will find nothing.

To get to the answer you seek we may have to go the indirect route. If you wish to continue OK - if not so be it.

Nonsense. You have two sets of information. Either you know which ones are “designed” (if any) and which ones are random" (if any) - or you don’t. If you KNEW the answer you would have provided it by now.

Obviously you don’t (since there is no “design-o-meter”), so now you try to wiggle out from admitting that “you do NOT know”. To say “sample 1 is designed… because…” or “sample 1 is NOT designed… because… and " sample 2 is designed… because…” or “sample 2 is NOT designed… because…” is a very simple endeavor. It needs no convoluted path. Once you made your choice - and they happen to be correct (!!), THEN we can go back and look at that “non-problem” you presented.

The choice is yours. Come forward with the “goods” or “fold”.

 

[zro_x]

If these brain states show plan or purpose then they are by definition designed.

I’m going to let you have the last word on this discussion too, buffalo.

There are now exactly thirty posts left in this thread. Now would be a good time for each of us to wrap up our discussions and give some sort of final satement.

I think that currently, it is impossible to show through scientific methodologies either that God exists or that he doesn’t. Both theories predict the universe we see equally well. naturalism seems to be an unhopeful philosphy, and I don’t see how it can keep from leading to nihilism if taken to its natural conclusions. nonetheless, That only makes naturalism less disirable; it does not reduce its truth value. Justice, freedom, love, beauty, and the like would not actually exist and even rationality controlled by our minds would not actually exist, but that doesn’t make naturalism any less probable.

Science of the gaps should be avoided. We can’t conclude that science will explain everything eventually, we can’t even infer it from the past success of science. But in running from science of the gaps, we have to be careful not to fall into the equally falicious God of the gaps. We can’t conclude that God exists just because there are some things science can’t explain either. We can’t even infer it, because we have no way of knowing whether or not science will be able to explain those things in the future, and as such, from our standpoint, things like consciousness having a natural explanation is equally probable as concsiousness having a supernatural explanation. We do need to live as if one or the other is true, but we can’t find out which is more probable through science. For that, we have to turn to philosophy and accounts of miraculous vioations in the laws of nature.

This will be my last post on this thread. I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to discuss this topic with all of you!

 

[buffalo]

I’m going to let you have the last word on this discussion too, buffalo.

There are now exactly thirty posts left in this thread. Now would be a good time for each of us to wrap up our discussions and give some sort of final satement.

I think that currently, it is impossible to show through scientific methodologies either that God exists or that he doesn’t. Both theories predict the universe we see equally well. naturalism seems to be an unhopeful philosphy, and I don’t see how it can keep from leading to nihilism if taken to its natural conclusions. nonetheless, That only makes naturalism less disirable; it does not reduce its truth value. Justice, freedom, love, beauty, and the like would not actually exist and even rationality controlled by our minds would not actually exist, but that doesn’t make naturalism any less probable.

Science of the gaps should be avoided. We can’t conclude that science will explain everything eventually, we can’t even infer it from the past success of science. But in running from science of the gaps, we have to be careful not to fall into the equally falicious God of the gaps. We can’t conclude that God exists just because there are some things science can’t explain either. We can’t even infer it, because we have no way of knowing whether or not science will be able to explain those things in the future, and as such, from our standpoint, things like consciousness having a natural explanation is equally probable as concsiousness having a supernatural explanation. We do need to live as if one or the other is true, but we can’t find out which is more probable through science. For that, we have to turn to philosophy and accounts of miraculous vioations in the laws of nature.

This will be my last post on this thread. I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to discuss this topic with all of you!

A fine summation.

 

[buffalo]

You are most welcome to dig. You will find nothing.

Nonsense. You have two sets of information. Either you know which ones are “designed” (if any) and which ones are random" (if any) - or you don’t. If you KNEW the answer you would have provided it by now.

Obviously you don’t (since there is no “design-o-meter”), so now you try to wiggle out from admitting that “you do NOT know”. To say “sample 1 is designed… because…” or “sample 1 is NOT designed… because… and " sample 2 is designed… because…” or “sample 2 is NOT designed… because…” is a very simple endeavor. It needs no convoluted path. Once you made your choice - and they happen to be correct (!!), THEN we can go back and look at that “non-problem” you presented.

The choice is yours. Come forward with the “goods” or “fold”.

You have folded already by refusing to answer this:

Which of these two are designed and why?

http://www.svalbard-adventure.com/comp.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...ScZ-p3kTNX-J1xQU6WwmujVTnlGfkNmotEvPcYjDlVmKw

 

[Trurl]

You have folded already by refusing to answer this:

Did I “refuse” to answer? Did you read my answer? Did you comprehend it? Unfortunately the rules forbid me to comment on your post.

Let the record show that you attempted to evade my simple question about your alleged “design-o-meter”. As a matter of fact, I have a pretty good idea just how your DOM “works”. You point it to something and it “whispers” into your ear: “Whoa, dude! No way, man! Natural, like? Naw… it sure looks, like, I mean… so complicated, or whatever. There is no way, dude that it just happened?” That is your “design-o-meter”. It could not resolve my simple problem… so stop peddling it… bah! Humbug!!

 

[buffalo]

Did I “refuse” to answer? Did you read my answer? Did you comprehend it? Unfortunately the rules forbid me to comment on your post.

Let the record show that you attempted to evade my simple question about your alleged “design-o-meter”. As a matter of fact, I have a pretty good idea just how your DOM “works”. You point it to something and it “whispers” into your ear: “Whoa, dude! No way, man! Natural, like? Naw… it sure looks, like, I mean… so complicated, or whatever. There is no way, dude that it just happened?” That is your “design-o-meter”. It could not resolve my simple problem… so stop peddling it… bah! Humbug!!

Gee - I must have missed it.

Please repost your answer- which of these are designed and why.

 

[JDaniel]

Honestly, I expected to be banned in minutes as is the standard practice on most Christian forums. I mostly haven’t bothered in the last ten years, except that I had a theological question to ask with regards to my mother.

Doxus:

CAF provides anyone with the benefit of a doubt. Really, all that is expected is common courtesy and hospitableness. All Catholic debaters expect is to debate in good faith.

Y’all surprised me by not using the banhammer instantly on people you disagree with, and after a conversation with one of your moderators who turned out to be perhaps over-sensitive, but an intelligent chap, I had high hopes that I might be able to engage in honest discussion here.

Good. I’m glad.

Instead, I’ve found more than the usual hostility.

Really? Can you point to an example? You do realize that you have charged in here like a bull, trying to bring with you your own personal set of rules. Neither you nor I get to set the rules. Whatever rules there are, are for the common good. And, that includes good faith. (You know what I mean by “good faith,” I’m sure.)

There are some rather quite nasty people on here who are practically rabid toward any mention of the possibility that they could be wrong.

Could you provide an example?

And there are others who insist–no, demand–that “atheism believes x”, despite being told by an atheist that that’s not the case.

Could you provide an example of this?

It would be like someone running around claiming that Catholics believe the transubstantiation is cannibalism, then when corrected by a Catholic they say, “Nuh-uh, Catholics actually believe that, you’re wrong, you just don’t understand anything!” It’s nasty, arrogant, childish, and rude to presume to be able to tell someone else what they believe, and then expect them to defend the strawmen you have erected.

Well, I think you’re being a tad over-zealous. Re-read some previous posts, including yours, and consider the attitudes of the writers, including yours. It’s my policy that, within the bounds of forum rules, I meet anger with anger, hostility with hostility, angst with angst, blatant disgust with blatant disgust. I do this to bring us both to the same level, and then, I try (although I’m not always successful) to bring my opponent up-tone. When we are both up-tone - as you and I are now - we will both have a civil debate and, who knows, perhaps minds will change.

I find it interesting that Catholics respect all other viewpoints on the existence of god; Protestants, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Juadism, even pagans. Even on this forum, threads on those subjects appear to be mostly civil. But if you’re an atheist, god help you, then it’s free game to make up whatever you like to slander them, and the fact that these people exist is so offensive that you don’t even allow discussion of their viewpoints in the Non-Catholic area of the forum–an oddly permanent “temporary” ban.

Well, I don’t think that that’s necessarily true. I have seen small exhibitions of uncharitableness, but rarely and not too severe. The mods do a pretty good job of handling. But, understand: we receive new atheists every day, almost hour by hour. It’s frustrating for most of us that we can’t find the words that get us through to most atheists. However, we know we must try. We want all comers to find the Truth, and believe that we are to blame for our losses, i.e., in the immobility of our atheist brothers and sisters. Yet, we stay and try.

I’m going to be busy most of today. I’ll address your major points when I can. I’m sorry, I won’t be wasting my time on strawmen you’ve created.

Now, you see . . . that was uncharitable. That was way more than an ad hominem; that was a jab in the eye with a sharp stick. Fortunately, I have thick skin for eyelids.

God bless,
jd

 

[Candide_West]

Specified complexity is crucial here. You are either deliberately avoiding it because of its implications or I am not explaining it well.

Perhaps Peter Plato did a better job.

Then you are not explaining it well. Perhaps this would be because you have not stated any of the conditions which must be met for something to be identified as designed yet? I keep on inviting you to suggest criteria, and you keep on not doing so.

 

[buffalo]

I keep on inviting you to suggest criteria, and you keep on not doing so.

And you are unwilling to answer the post that will help us with this. I am now beginning to wonder what you are afraid of.

 

[Candide_West]

And you are unwilling to answer the post that will help us with this. I am now beginning to wonder what you are afraid of.

What question? I keep asking a simple question - how we can tell if something is designed., and you keep not answering it.

That is THE question, until we have some method to detect design we’ll never have any evidence of design.

 

[Doxus]

Right, but ultimately, the brain, itself governed by quantum effects, changes those probablilities, not the mind.

Not necessarily. Do not forget the Observer Effect, that a conscious mind observing quantum phenomena seems to collapse the wave function and force that particle to choose a state. Consciousness and free will may very well have a basis in quantum mechanics which we don’t understand. Certainly there is more going on than sheer determinism.

And you seem to be under the misapprehension that something being natural must by necessity mean it is deterministic. This is not the case.

Let’s go back to the Geiger counter and the bomb again. If the universe were deterministic, then one would be able to predict, before-hand, whether the radioactive particle would hit the counter and set off the bomb, or not. But because quantum effects are probabilistic, not deterministic, you cannot predict the outcome.

Perhaps there’s consciousness in matter? Perhaps the the atom that emits the particle decides whether it wants to decay or not?

This has strayed out of the realm of science and into philosophy. We don’t have the tools needed to find answers to those questions yet. I consider the matter undecided. Maybe science will find out, or not. We’ll find out, won’t we?

 

[buffalo]

What question? I keep asking a simple question - how we can tell if something is designed., and you keep not answering it.

That is THE question, until we have some method to detect design we’ll never have any evidence of design.

I noticed you did not show evidence for your assertion you answered the before referenced post.

I ask again and for the last time. Which one of those two images was designed and why. You already admitted human design so what is the problem?

 

[Doxus]

What question? I keep asking a simple question - how we can tell if something is designed., and you keep not answering it.

That is THE question, until we have some method to detect design we’ll never have any evidence of design.

Oh, but everything is designed of course. Everything was designed by god, therefore everything is proof of god’s design. Isn’t it obvious? :coffeeread:

 

[tonyrey]

I think that currently, it is impossible to show through scientific methodologies either that God exists or that he doesn’t.

That is indisputable because science is restricted to physical reality but the organised and co-ordinated complexity revealed by science is more cogently explained as the result of rational rather than random activity.

Both theories predict the universe we see equally well.

The principle of induction has no rational basis in science because science fails to explain the constancy of natural laws. It assumes the future will be similar to the past without giving any reason for that assumption whereas Design predicts that the orderliness and intelligibility of the universe will continue because they are not inexplicable accidents.

naturalism seems to be an unhopeful philosophy…

Of that there is no doubt with its notion that we are nothing but sparks in the dark…
.

… and I don’t see how it can keep from leading to nihilism if taken to its natural conclusions.

It is the logical consequence of the belief that everything exists for no reason or purpose.

nonetheless, That only makes naturalism less disirable; it does not reduce its truth value.

Nihilists don’t even recognise truth value!

Justice, freedom, love, beauty, and the like would not actually exist and even rationality controlled by our minds would not actually exist, but that doesn’t make naturalism any less probable.

It makes naturalism incomparably less probable from a pragmatic point of view. No civilised person lives as if we are freaks of nature!

Science of the gaps should be avoided. We can’t conclude that science will explain everything eventually, we can’t even infer it from the past success of science. But in running from science of the gaps, we have to be careful not to fall into the equally fallacious God of the gaps. We can’t conclude that God exists just because there are some things science can’t explain either. We can’t even infer it, because we have no way of knowing whether or not science will be able to explain those things in the future, and as such, from our standpoint, things like consciousness having a natural explanation is equally probable as consciousness having a supernatural explanation.

Pascal was no fool and believed man’s greatness consists in the power of reason. The success of science has convincingly corroborated his claim. Without consciousness human civilisation wouldn’t even exist. That is why it should be regarded as a fundamental fact rather than a curious coincidence.

We do need to live as if one or the other is true, but we can’t find out which is more probable through science.

Precisely!

For that, we have to turn to philosophy and accounts of miraculous violations in the laws of nature.

It is fitting that philosophy should have the last word in your last post!

I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to discuss this topic with all of you!

Thank you for your civilised, courteous, reasonable and thought-provoking contributions. :clapping:

 

[JDaniel]

Oh, but everything is designed of course. Everything was designed by god, therefore everything is proof of god’s design. Isn’t it obvious? :coffeeread:

Doxus:

Once again, your written word betrays an overt demeaning attitude, that belittles the very Catholics that allow you to continue to be here. This remark has no other purpose than that, but is itself proof that it is you, and not thoughtless particles, that expresses itself. I don’t believe thoughtless particles exhibit attitude on their own, nor do I believe that they would, for purely self-serving purposes, produce a post that scurrilously titillated.

With all due respect.

God bless,
jd