Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Sair]

Non sequitur. Design does not imply that everything had to be designed as it is. There are many other possible successful modes of existence.

I’ll ignore the fact that you’ve overlooked the thrust of my statement - that there is no objective, testable means by which to distinguish ‘designed’ from ‘natural’ phenomena, beyond the ability to watch the process of design or specifically identify the designer. For the sake of this discussion, it’s enough to point out that undoubtedly, there has already been plenty of argument regarding the possible ‘accidental’ consequences of divine design, and how many of these are brutal, indifferent and otherwise incompatible with the notion of an all-good, perfect, benevolent God. Either God is not a ‘perfect’ designer, or there is some justification for all the natural and moral evil and suffering encountered in the world. The latter has never been offered, except in the most vague and evasive terms.

 

[Sair]

The distinction “designed-natural” is based on the false assumption that natural phenomena are necessarily undesigned - which begs the question.

I agree - things that are designed by natural beings are also natural. But your argument from design is concerned with supernatural design. How do you tell the difference?

 

[prodigalson2011]

This isn’t entirely true - there are plenty of passages in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, that allow people to disregard the needs of humans and focus upon dogmatic adherence to the supposed wishes of a God who might well be imaginary.

As Sam Harris has pointed out, fundamentalism in religion isn’t necessarily the problem - it’s the content of the religious texts and teachings upon which the fundamentalists draw that allow for atrocities. At the end of the day, and as far as the victims are concerned, it doesn’t really matter whether the perpetrators were ‘abusing’ or ‘contradicting’ their faith or not. The point is that their faith actually contains permission for them to act as they do. If, for example, as Harris suggests, the fundamentalists are Jainists, there is no way they can abuse any living creature - they can only severely limit their own freedoms by assiduously avoiding harm to other living beings. There’s really no way to interpret Jainism that leads to deliberate harm to others. Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, provide ample opportunities for such interpretations.

So, in a sense, it is correct to say that corrupting influences are at work - but the fact of the matter is, some of those corrupting influences are inherent in the dogmas of particular religions.

Cite one passage of the New Testament which permits Christians to neglect others.

 

[Sair]

Cite one passage of the New Testament which permits Christians to neglect others.

You’ll have to give me time on this one - there are many to wade through; although you’ll have to allow for the difference between ‘neglect’ and ‘actively abuse’…

 

[prodigalson2011]

You’ll have to give me time on this one - there are many to wade through; although you’ll have to allow for the difference between ‘neglect’ and ‘actively abuse’…

Either one. It’s not very prudent to go making claims for which you have no evidence.

I’ll await your example, though, but in the meantime I’ll move on to the next point which is actually twofold:

a) The Bible is not the sole authority of the Catholic faith.

b) Not all religions are equal.

c) even nonreligious systems of ethics (Nietzsche, anybody) or even scientific theories (the Darwinian elephant that lurks in the corner of every ethical room of modern life) are open to misinterpretation and abuse. Religion does not have a monopoly on corruption and abuse. Sorry, Sam Harris.

 

[tonyrey]

If everything has a natural explanation **your argument must have a natural explanation. **Your beliefs, values, goals and conclusions must be based on physical desires rather than rational considerations!You seem to be implying a contradiction here. I’m not sure where you’re finding it, though.

Do you really believe **all **your beliefs, values, goals and conclusions are based on your physical desires, fears, habits, instincts, impulses and aversions?

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. Design does not imply that everything had to be designed as it is. There are many other possible successful modes of existence.

In the first place my statement was a response to your obviously false assertion:

Because if there is nothing that is natural, then ‘designed’ is the default, and there’s no point in arguing over the difference - there’s nothing that could be different.

Secondly your view of “natural” is based on the assumption that **everything **is undesigned in spite of all the evidence produced in this thread. Your mind is closed to the very possibility that physical explanations are essentially inadequate even though there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that nature is inevitable and self-explanatory.

For the sake of this discussion, it’s enough to point out that undoubtedly, there has already been plenty of argument regarding the possible ‘accidental’ consequences of divine design, and how many of these are brutal, indifferent and otherwise incompatible with the notion of an all-good, perfect, benevolent God.

That argument is flawed by the inevitability of accidents in any immensely complex physical universe.

Either God is not a ‘perfect’ designer, or there is some justification for all the natural and moral evil and suffering encountered in the world. The latter has never been offered, except in the most vague and evasive terms.

That argument is flawed by the inevitability of imperfection in a physical universe. It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing, unrealistic to think we can have advantages without corresponding disadvantages and inconsistent with the failure of anyone to present a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia.

 

[tonyrey]

The distinction “designed-natural” is based on the false assumption that natural phenomena are necessarily undesigned - which begs the question.

Once again you are assuming persons are natural beings, i.e. the product of purposeless processes. How do you justify that dogmatic view?

But your argument from design is concerned with supernatural design.

You are the one who introduced the term "supernatural ". Design simply implies rational activity is not in the same category as physical processes like nutrition, excretion and reproduction. The failure to define “natural” is at the root of a false interpretation of reality as essentially purposeless. You are constantly using your power of reason to deny that reality has a rational foundation…

 

[prodigalson2011]

tonyrey:

You are constantly using your power of reason to deny that reality has a rational foundation…

Q: How does rusty old materialistic philosophy taste?

A: Irony.

 

[JDaniel]

One possibility you haven’t considered here - insight and understanding are not ‘things’ or ‘qualities’ to be possessed or not by inanimate objects, but properties that emerge from the interaction of these ‘inanimate’ objects when they produce ‘animate’ objects, like complex organisms. But I suppose that makes them not ‘real’ in your estimation anyway! The concept you appear to have of what insight and understanding are supposed to be also confines you to the limited possibilities you’ve outlined above.

Sair:

There’s that word again: “emerge.” Just what do you think “emerge” means when it is used to replace “God?” Is it not itself a “god of the gaps?” Do you really know that particles “interact?” Or, do you merely believe that they do?

Look: if particles merely encountered one another without rhyme or reason, all that would arise from such so-called “interaction” would be a potential infinity of inconsequential chance encounters - like endless waves rolling up on an endless beach. To ascribe the myriad creations that currently exist, and appear to have existed from the beginning of the earth (in one form or another), to mere emergence, is to replace God with the god-of-emergence. That would be a mere substitution of words.

At best, the mental substitution of “God” with the “god-of-emergence” allows one to maintain one’s belief in one’s self-superiority - as though we actually were more than merely configured lattices of S-points (dimensionless point particles) immersed in continuous, invisible space.

Space that is continuous and invisible is much more than distension between dimensionless particles. Dimensionless particles supply no reality. It is the Space within the lattices that supplies Reality (mass, weight). Therefore, nothingness supplies some-thingness. But, nothingness cannot be true nothingness in every respect.

How does continuous, invisible Space within a lattice of dimensionless S-points “produce ‘animate’ objects, like complex organisms?” Evolution does not tell us how that can happen. It is a faith without Revelation that gives one a delusional sense of mastery and control over whichever god one wishes to ignore. But, the delusion that continuous, invisible Space within a lattice of dimensionless S-points produces ‘animate’ objects, like complex organisms, is to say the least, a maximal absurdity.

Really, one might be able to effectively argue that a single thing, or two, emerged from such an ‘evolution’. But, all that is? Why do you not get this?

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Q: How does rusty old materialistic philosophy taste?

A: Irony.

The “rag and bone men” in the UK used to shout “Any old iron!”. I never thought it would become associated with materialism. It must be symbolic of intellectual poverty and desperation…

 

[tonyrey]

Sair:

There’s that word again: “emerge.” Just what do you think “emerge” means when it is used to replace “God?” Is it not itself a “god of the gaps?” Do you really know that particles “interact?” Or, do you merely believe that they do?

Look: if particles merely encountered one another without rhyme or reason, all that would arise from such so-called “interaction” would be a potential infinity of inconsequential chance encounters - like endless waves rolling up on an endless beach. To ascribe the myriad creations that currently exist, and appear to have existed from the beginning of the earth (in one form or another), to mere emergence, is to replace God with the god-of-emergence. That would be a mere substitution of words.

At best, the mental substitution of “God” with the “god-of-emergence” allows one to maintain one’s belief in one’s self-superiority - as though we actually were more than merely configured lattices of S-points (dimensionless point particles) immersed in continuous, invisible space.

Space that is continuous and invisible is much more than distension between dimensionless particles. Dimensionless particles supply no reality. It is the Space within the lattices that supplies Reality (mass, weight). Therefore, nothingness supplies \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*some-thingness*. But, nothingness cannot be true nothingness in every respect.

How does continuous, invisible Space within a lattice of dimensionless S-points “produce ‘animate’ objects, like complex organisms?” Evolution does not tell us how that can happen. It is a faith without Revelation that gives one a delusional sense of mastery and control over whichever god one wishes to ignore. But, the delusion that continuous, invisible Space within a lattice of dimensionless S-points produces ‘animate’ objects, like complex organisms, is to say the least, a maximal absurdity.

Really, one might be able to effectively argue that a single thing, or two, emerged from such an ‘evolution’. But, all that is? Why do you not get this?

An excellent and original analysis of the magical transformation of particles into rational beings…

 

[onenow1]

Superbly succinct success! God bless.

:tiphat:

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Sair:

There’s that word again: “emerge.” Just what do you think “emerge” means when it is used to replace “God?” Is it not itself a “god of the gaps?” Do you really know that particles “interact?” Or, do you merely believe that they do?

Look: if particles merely encountered one another without rhyme or reason, all that would arise from such so-called “interaction” would be a potential infinity of inconsequential chance encounters - like endless waves rolling up on an endless beach. To ascribe the myriad creations that currently exist, and appear to have existed from the beginning of the earth (in one form or another), to mere emergence, is to replace God with the god-of-emergence. That would be a mere substitution of words.

At best, the mental substitution of “God” with the “god-of-emergence” allows one to maintain one’s belief in one’s self-superiority - as though we actually were more than merely configured lattices of S-points (dimensionless point particles) immersed in continuous, invisible space.

Space that is continuous and invisible is much more than distension between dimensionless particles. Dimensionless particles supply no reality. It is the Space within the lattices that supplies Reality (mass, weight). Therefore, nothingness supplies some-thingness. But, nothingness cannot be true nothingness in every respect.

How does continuous, invisible Space within a lattice of dimensionless S-points “produce ‘animate’ objects, like complex organisms?” Evolution does not tell us how that can happen. It is a faith without Revelation that gives one a delusional sense of mastery and control over whichever god one wishes to ignore. But, the delusion that continuous, invisible Space within a lattice of dimensionless S-points produces ‘animate’ objects, like complex organisms, is to say the least, a maximal absurdity.

Really, one might be able to effectively argue that a single thing, or two, emerged from such an ‘evolution’. But, all that is? Why do you not get this?

God bless,
jd

On rereading your post I was reminded of the incredible power attributed to purposeless particles - without the slightest evidence that they are capable of producing anything but permutations of purposeless particles.

But perhaps we should be more realistic, get right down to earth and start calling everyone “PPP” followed by an appropriate number… That should get rid for once and for all of the superstitious illusion that we are independent, responsible persons. Why beat about the bush when the truth is staring us in the face all the time?

 

[Sair]

Sair:

Really, one might be able to effectively argue that a single thing, or two, emerged from such an ‘evolution’. But, all that is? Why do you not get this?

God bless,
jd

Why do you and other ID proponents not ‘get’ that until there is actual evidence for a designer, the design hypothesis is a non-starter?

What do you have against the notion of emergence anyway? Neither hydrogen nor oxygen atoms are ‘wet’, after all, yet strangely enough, in combination as water, they demonstrate ‘wetness’ at certain temperatures. Oh, I know emergence is a rather more complex and difficult explanation than “God magicked stuff into existence”, but it’s far more interesting and informative for all that…

 

[Sair]

On rereading your post I was reminded of the incredible power attributed to purposeless particles - without the slightest evidence that they are capable of producing anything but permutations of purposeless particles.

Um…this is actually a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black! Incredible power is attributed to an imaginary being, under the ‘design’ hypothesis, without the slightest evidence that such an entity exists! Particles - atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons and even smaller particles, on the other hand, demonstrably exist and demonstrably combine to produce complex entities. I’ll take that over permutations of supernaturalist fantasy any day.

 

[Sair]

Once again you are assuming persons are natural beings, i.e. the product of purposeless processes. How do you justify that dogmatic view?
You are the one who introduced the term "supernatural ". Design simply implies rational activity is not in the same category as physical processes like nutrition, excretion and reproduction. The failure to define “natural” is at the root of a false interpretation of reality as essentially purposeless. You are constantly using your power of reason to deny that reality has a rational foundation…

There’s simply no evidence of any planning in the evolution of humans, or any other beings - not when the circumstances of our existence are far more parsimoniously explained by unthinking physical forces.

Natural explanations are simply that - explanations that are accessible to investigation by natural beings. If your designer was natural, then he/she/it would leave evidence of interaction, evidence detectable through investigation by natural beings such as ourselves - bound as we are by the demands and limits of a natural existence. But that isn’t the way of ID, is it? We are obliged to give up the search and just accept that the designer has more profound knowledge and understanding than we could possibly attain!

And you are simply trying to muddy the waters by blaming me for the introduction of ‘supernatural’ design - the very recourse to ‘supernatural’ explanations, as I’ve pointed out many times before, implies that those who believe in the efficacy of such explanations already think they know the limits of nature, and are prepared to cast aside natural explanations as inadequate before having engaged in any real exploration of same. It’s much easier to just say, “God did it!” and thus close your mind to the real marvel - that blind, unthinking phenomena can produce something like consciousness, for example. You reject even the possibility, when the exploration has barely begun. Scientists - especially neuroscientists - are well aware that they don’t know everything about consciousness and how it arises. That’s why they’re still looking!

Your claim of ‘conclusive’ evidence for design is nothing of the kind, especially when you can’t offer independent evidence of the existence of a designer. All ID has ever offered is a denial of the possibility that natural forces and phenomena can produce the effects we experience as conscious beings. But no ID proponent knows this, nor can they demonstrate it objectively. As others have said on these fora, please produce conclusive evidence of supernatural design - scientists would love to see it, and undoubtedly there would be a Nobel Prize involved. But all ID theorists have ever done has been to say, “Well, scientists haven’t explained X, therefore X must be designed.” Scientists haven’t given up looking for explanations, though - that is left to the supernaturalists.

 

[tonyrey]

On rereading your post I was reminded of the incredible power attributed to purposeless particles - without the slightest evidence that they are capable of producing anything but permutations of purposeless particles.

Once again your preconceived view of reality is asserted dogmatically - and irrelevantly. The topic in this thread is evidence for Design, not for the origin of Design.

Particles - atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons and even smaller particles, on the other hand, demonstrably exist and demonstrably combine to produce complex entities.

The question is **how **and **why **they combine - to which no answer is forthcoming. It is a mere supposition that they have done so entirely by themselves without any directive agency.

I’ll take that over permutations of supernaturalist fantasy any day.

Your fantasy of an irrational, valueless, purposeless wonderland is a self-refuting oversimplification of the supreme issue in philosophy: the origin not only of rational existence but of existence itself…

 

[tonyrey]

There’s simply no evidence of any planning in the evolution of humans, or any other beings - not when the circumstances of our existence are far more parsimoniously explained by unthinking physical forces.

Unjustified dogmatism.

Natural explanations are simply that - explanations that are accessible to investigation by natural beings. If your designer was natural, then he/she/it would leave evidence of interaction, evidence detectable through investigation by natural beings such as ourselves - bound as we are by the demands and limits of a natural existence. But that isn’t the way of ID, is it? We are obliged to give up the search and just accept that the designer has more profound knowledge and understanding than we could possibly attain!

Irrelevant to the topic.

And you are simply trying to muddy the waters by blaming me for the introduction of ‘supernatural’ design - the very recourse to ‘supernatural’ explanations, as I’ve pointed out many times before, implies that those who believe in the efficacy of such explanations already think they know the limits of nature, and are prepared to cast aside natural explanations as inadequate before having engaged in any real exploration of same. It’s much easier to just say, “God did it!” and thus close your mind to the real marvel - that blind, unthinking phenomena can produce something like consciousness, for example. You reject even the possibility, when the exploration has barely begun. Scientists - especially neuroscientists - are well aware that they don’t know everything about consciousness and how it arises. That’s why they’re still looking!

With equal facility and far more cogency it’s much easier to say “Purposeless particles did it!” and close your mind to** the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.**

Your claim of ‘conclusive’ evidence for design is nothing of the kind, especially when you can’t offer independent evidence of the existence of a designer. All ID has ever offered is a denial of the possibility that natural forces and phenomena can produce the effects we experience as conscious beings. But no ID proponent knows this, nor can they demonstrate it objectively.

Your implication that the anti-Design proponent knows we are passive spectators rather than creative agents is not only blatantly false but self-refuting.

As others have said on these fora, please produce conclusive evidence of supernatural design - scientists would love to see it, and undoubtedly there would be a Nobel Prize involved. But all ID theorists have ever done has been to say, “Well, scientists haven’t explained X, therefore X must be designed.” Scientists haven’t given up looking for explanations, though - that is left to the supernaturalists.

It would be far more to the point - given your worship of science - to offer a Nobel Prize to the person who produces conclusive evidence that **thought consists of thoughtless processes. **

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you and other ID proponents not ‘get’ that until there is actual evidence for a designer, the design hypothesis is a non-starter?

What do you have against the notion of emergence anyway? Neither hydrogen nor oxygen atoms are ‘wet’, after all, yet strangely enough, in combination as water, they demonstrate ‘wetness’ at certain temperatures. Oh, I know emergence is a rather more complex and difficult explanation than “God magicked stuff into existence”, but it’s far more interesting and informative for all that…

It is amusing to observe the same old hackneyed reference to “wetness” as incontrovertible evidence for the development of everything and everyone - including persons - from such basic elements as hydrogen and oxygen, with oblivious disregard of the fact that wetness is a **material **quality in an entirely distinct category from all the most valuable and significant aspects of reality like persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. It is the supposedly magical power of inanimate matter that is the least interesting, the least informative and the least fruitful interpretation of existence. If only matter exists nothing matters - and we are just mindless machines as insignificant, in the words of the atheist Ernest Renan, as the moss under our feet…