Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

They are not “off-the-wall” assumptions by “some people,” they are almost universally recognized scientific principles. And those models are plentiful. In fact, most every model of a universe that deviates from these parameters results in a pretty quickly self-destructing universe.

Seeing as most scientists agree that there is no fundamental reason why the universe should possess the constants and arbitrary quantities of its intial conditions, and we can use our knowledge of math and physics to determine the outcome of any particular universal setup, we can indeed weigh the evidence in favor of a chance universe or a universe that has been deliberately conditioned.

We know this because, as discussed above, nearly every model of the universe that deviates from these underlying conditions results in an imploding or otherwise unproductive universe. The formation of matter itself relies on a rather arbitrary expansion event within the first few seconds of the big bang.

For example, for life, in particular, to have formed would have been impossible if the nuclear weak force were different by so little as one part in 10^100.

This isn’t stuff I’m just making up, it’s hard science.

“The deepest laws that we have at present, the laws from which all other laws can be deduced insofar as they can be deduced from anything, are the laws of the ‘standard model,’ a set of equations governing quantum fields which manifest themselves as various particles, electrons, quarks, and photons. The next big step is to explain: Why the standard model the way it is? It’s not a final law. What’s underneath the standard model? We don’t know.” - Steven Weinberg

Tell that to Steven Weinberg and the countless other scientists who would disagree with your assessment of the laws of nature. While we can clearly see the reality of the basic principles of the universe, we cannot assume their physical necessity to be axiomatic.

Irrefutable! The worship of Necessity is widespread among those who reject Design.

 

[buffalo]

The snowflake example is excellent.

There is a very interesting mathematical example that extremely simple “rules” will create absolutely mind-boggling complexity. I am talking about John Conway’s “Game of life”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway’s_Game_of_Life (I am sure that someone will point out that the game itself was “designed”- showing their lack of comprehension.)

Complex patterns occur in nature all the time.

However, if we focus on design we see designs are always based on symbols and language and contain patterns. Natural patterns never contain these.

 

[ManRay]

1. This is a classic example of being unable to think outside the box.

Nonsensical statement

1. It amounts to regarding this universe as the only possible universe, attributing physical necessity to everything without a shred of evidence.

Still - this makes absolutely no sense.

1. The fact that events have occurred does not imply that they had to occur.

Still not making any sense. None of what you said has anything to do with what I wrote.

 

[ManRay]

Complex patterns occur in nature all the time.

However, if we focus on design we see designs are always based on symbols and language and contain patterns. Natural patterns never contain these.

You refuse to understand the point of what we are saying. You have no objective of what design means across time, space, and the culture’s that exist within them. Just like the watch. It’s argued that it wouldn’t be possible for someone to find a watch (metaphorical earth) and not come to the conclusion that it was designed - but the case of the tribe that found an airplane, and tried to either hatch or eat the bomb by throwing it in a fire (because they thought it was an egg or food) is incontrovertible evidence that the idea that something is designed is borne of environmental and contextual norms. There are people in the 21st century that will argue until their dying breath that the face on mars was designed by an alien race. There isn’t even an objective standard on what complexity truly is culturally and historically speaking.

 

[buffalo]

You refuse to understand the point of what we are saying. You have no objective of what design means across time, space, and the culture’s that exist within them. Just like the watch. It’s argued that it wouldn’t be possible for someone to find a watch (metaphorical earth) and not come to the conclusion that it was designed - but the case of the tribe that found an airplane, and tried to either hatch or eat the bomb by throwing it in a fire (because they thought it was an egg or food) is incontrovertible evidence that the idea that something is designed is borne of environmental and contextual norms. There are people in the 21st century that will argue until their dying breath that the face on mars was designed by an alien race. There isn’t even an objective standard on what complexity truly is culturally and historically speaking.

Then we should call off (Oh we did) SETI, archaeology digs etc…

 

[ManRay]

Then we should call off (Oh we did) SETI, archaeology digs etc…

I would just about agree with that…seriously we’ve entered into zero sum gain territory.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And, ultimately, that is the point - without a frame of reference, without any evidence whatsoever of the actual existence of any designer, short of the bare assertion that complex systems “must” be the result of design, there is no way to compare. Unless there arises such evidence, independently of the assumption of design that gets attached to complex systems, or unless it can be explained by the design proponents exactly how the world would be different from what it is were it not designed, then as you say, we have no epistemological method for establishing design over undirected physical processes. At least we have seen the latter in action!

The entire universe at the Macro, Micro, and Nano levels exhibit absolute order, not only in simple beings ( a hunk of iron ore) but in complex beings ( man, animals, plants). On the earth each class of beings exhibits the rule of absolute order. Such order would include the inner relatedness and relationships of various systems like flora and fauna and animal with each other and with the seasons and the weather, and the relationships of all the things of this world with the coordinated orderly movement of the galaxy, and between one galaxy with another, and on and on. This amounts to much more than chance. That is an illogical conclusion.

So where such vast order is the rule, one rationally concludes that there exists a source and cause of this order. This source can only be something of vast intelligence. And as there is nothing in the universe of matter, space, and time that meets the qualifications for such an orderer, we conclude to an Intelligent Being radically other than the universe itself. There can only be one such Being ultimately or there would be vast confusion rather than order in the universe.

Now such order exists only because the beings in the universe act with intentionality, with a definite purpose, they are directed toward definite ends proper to their natures. Again this directedness can only come from some super intellect capable of directing all things to their proper ends. This can only be the Being who orders the systems of the universe.

But none of the beings of the universe can account for their own motion/change which is required in order for the various systems to move intentionally in an orderd fashion. Thus each being in the universe and the movement/change in the various systems must have an efficient cause by which they move/change, which cause itself does not and cannot change. Such a cause must be Pure Actuality and thus is radically other than the sum total of all the movements/changes happening simultaneously, here and now.

We conclude then to the Necessary existence of a Being who moves all things as their First effecient cause of all movements/changes.
Ultimately we conclude that the Being in each case above is the same Being, and all Believers would call this God.

 

[tonyrey]

Nonsensical statement.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Still - this makes absolutely no sense.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Still not making any sense. None of what you said has anything to do with what I wrote.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[tonyrey]

1. This is a classic example of being unable to think outside the box.

Unsubstantiated assertion which does not refute my statement.

2. It amounts to regarding this universe as the only possible universe, attributing physical necessity to everything without a shred of evidence.

Still - this makes absolutely no sense.

Unsubstantiated assertion which does not refute my statement.

3. The fact that events have occurred does not imply that they had to

occur.
Still not making any sense. None of what you said has anything to do with what I wrote.

Unsubstantiated assertion which does not refute my statement.

 

[Trurl]

Anyone who does any reading on physics and cosmology should be familiar with this. I’m not going to do your homework for you.

In short, the laws of nature are mathematical. Physicists can tinker with the math and predict what would happen if a given force or condition were stronger, weaker, etc., etc. It’s fairly basic to theoretical physics, and if you’re that unfamiliar with it, then I really don’t think you should be arguing about the universe.

That has nothing to do with the question of how do you know if something is designed. I am not interested in the “fine tuning” argument, there is a different thread for that.

 

[tonyrey]

Complex patterns occur in nature all the time.

However, if we focus on design we see designs are always based on symbols and language and contain patterns. Natural patterns never contain these.

And design is evident in **purposeful **complexity…

Even snowflakes have aesthetic value rejected by those determined to reduce the universe into a purposeless accident:

“Dull would he be of soul who could pass by a sightso touching in its majesty…”

• Wordsworth

Yet the Philistine materialists attach infinite value to their own “purposeless” opinions!

 

[Trurl]

Still parading that worn out straw man. Since the postulate is that we live in a DESIGNED UNIVERSE, it would be folly to seek an example of an undesigned phenomenon WITHIN that universe, since EVERYTHING within that universe is the product of its DESIGN.

In which case the word “design” is meaningless.

You are requesting a false analogy. We are not talking about individually designed objects; we are talking about a universe whose functional principles are perfectly suited to produce matter and develop it into various forms, most significantly that of life, which is quite a tall order for an accidental collection of forces and conditions.

Baloney. The universe consists of objects. The “fine tuning argument” is just a mental game, has nothing to do with reality. It is fine to set up a “what if” kind of hypothesis, but without empirical verification it remains empty speculation. The “fine tuning” is just as empty as the “multiverse” theory. If one of them will have a supporting physical evidence for it, then it will be something to take seriously.

 

[Trurl]

Abuse is an inadequate substitute for valid reasoning.

Demanding evidence is not “abuse”. And if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

If values are subjective all your statements are valueless!

Only to you, because you cannot understand them. But, of course is works in both directions, your statements are valueless for me - because I do understand them.

According to you design is also subjective - which disposes of all your “reasoning” for once and for all since your assertions are caused by forces beyond your control. Bad luck! (For those who believe in luck- rather than design - that is only to be expected…

It is not “design” which is subjective, it is the perception of design, which is. And since you are unable to tell what differentiates a designed object from an undesigned one, and keep on evading the subject, you only put your poor reasoning on display. As I said, pitiful. (There is an onld saying: "it is bad enough if someone is considered dumb, but it is infinitely worse, if he opens his mouth and confirms it! )

 

[Trurl]

Complex patterns occur in nature all the time.

Yes, they sure do.

However, if we focus on design we see designs are always based on symbols and language and contain patterns. Natural patterns never contain these.

What symbols and language are you referring to? Consider a thought experiment: You are an astronaut landing on a faraway planet. The planet’s vegetation is so alien that there is nothing similar to any vegetation you have ever seen before. You find something on the ground, which is also something you have never seen before.

What method are you going to employ to decide if that object is an “artifact”, or the result of a natural, undesigned process. How could you find out if the vegetation around you is the natural result of an unguided evolution, or the result of a bunch of biologists, who designed them in a laboratory, and then set them “free”?

Think about this problem. This should show you the difficulty of telling “designed” and “undesigned” apart.

 

[Trurl]

And design is evident in **purposeful **complexity…

Nonsense. Nothing is “evident”. To say that something is evident is the sure sign that you are unable to bring up arguments for it.

And how do you know what is purposeful or not? The growth of a stalactite sure “looks” like a puproseful activity - it "wishes, “wants”, “desires” to reach the stalagmite - do you really think that it is a conscious, purposeful activity? Just because something “looks like” a purposeful activity, it is not necessarily so.

Even snowflakes have aesthetic value rejected by those determined to reduce the universe into a purposeless accident:

Have you tried to show your snowflake to a dog? The smell of a flower could be very pleasing to the human nostrils, but it is a disgusting stench to dog. On the other hand a dog finds a pile of excrement and happily rolls into it, to preserve its “pleasant odor”. There is no objective beauty.

 

[tonyrey]

Abuse is an inadequate substitute for valid reasoning.

I always stay out of the kitchen when the cook produces foul odours!

If values are subjective all your statements are valueless!

Only to you, because you cannot understand them. But, of course is works in both directions, your statements are valueless for me - because I do understand them.

Those assertions reveal nothing more than hubris… and your failure to grasp the point that if values are subjective your statements are valuable only in your opinion.

According to you design is also subjective - which disposes of all your “reasoning” for once and for all since your assertions are caused by forces beyond your control. Bad luck! (For those who believe in luck- rather than design - that is only to be expected…

*

It is not “design” which is subjective, it is the perception of design, which is.

If design is objective the onus is on you to explain** how** it originated…

And since you are unable to tell what differentiates a designed object from an undesigned one, and keep on evading the subject, you only put your poor reasoning on display. As I said, pitiful. (There is an onld saying: "it is bad enough if someone is considered dumb, but it is infinitely worse, if he opens his mouth and confirms it! )

The one to be pitied is** the one who derives all physical and mental activity from purposeless** molecular activity - thereby undermining all his conclusions.

 

[tonyrey]

Nonsense. Nothing is “evident”. To say that something is evident is the sure sign that you are unable to bring up arguments for it.

If nothing is evident on what do you base your reasoning?

And how do you know what is purposeful or not?

Because it achieves goals that are not achieved by inanimate objects.

The growth of a stalactite sure “looks” like a puproseful activity - it "wishes, “wants”, “desires” to reach the stalagmite - do you really think that it is a conscious, purposeful activity?

Inanimate objects reveal no evidence of wishes, wants or desires.

Just because something “looks like” a purposeful activity, it is not necessarily so.

A platitude.

Have you tried to show your snowflake to a dog? The smell of a flower could be very pleasing to the human nostrils, but it is a disgusting stench to dog. On the other hand a dog finds a pile of excrement and happily rolls into it, to preserve its “pleasant odor”. There is no objective beauty.

The failure to appreciate beauty does not entail the absence of beauty. In human beings it reveals a Philistine lack of aesthetic taste and judgment…

 

[tonyrey]

*Anyone who does any reading on physics and cosmology should be familiar with this. I’m not going to do your homework for you.

It is directly linked to the question of whether things are designed - unless you regard the blind Goddess - Chance - capable of anything…

I am not interested in the “fine tuning” argument, there is a different thread for that.

Lack of interest does not alter the significant fact of specified complexity.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, they sure do.

What symbols and language are you referring to? Consider a thought experiment: You are an astronaut landing on a faraway planet. The planet’s vegetation is so alien that there is nothing similar to any vegetation you have ever seen before. You find something on the ground, which is also something you have never seen before.

What method are you going to employ to decide if that object is an “artifact”, or the result of a natural, undesigned process. How could you find out if the vegetation around you is the natural result of an unguided evolution, or the result of a bunch of biologists, who designed them in a laboratory, and then set them “free”?

Think about this problem. This should show you the difficulty of telling “designed” and “undesigned” apart.

Your argument is undermined by the assumption that “vegetation is the natural result of an unguided evolution”. In other words you are begging the question…

 

[tonyrey]

I always stay out of the kitchen when the cook produces foul odours!

Those assertions reveal nothing more than hubris… and your failure to grasp the point that if values are subjective your statements are valuable only in your opinion.
If design is objective the onus is on you to explain** how** it originated…

The one to be pitied is** the one who derives all physical and mental activity from purposeless** molecular activity - thereby undermining all his conclusions.

The master of evasions being the one who does not respond rationally to the above statements.