Conclusive evidence for Design!

[pig]

creationists are a wet blanket - woohooo

 

[JDaniel]

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?

Tony:

Where shall we start? With Adam?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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?

Sair:

Please provide an example of something that is not designed.

What do you have against the notion of emergence anyway?

You read my post. Now, I would beg you to think.

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…

Do you actually see a difference? Our beliefs are grounded in the fact of Revelation; your ideas have no grounding, utterly. In fact, your postulations imply an irremediable deprivation of grounding. Why do you not see that?

God bless,
jd

 

[Sair]

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.

And that’s the whole point - without the origin of ‘Design’, as in, the identity of the ‘designer’ and evidence of said designer’s activity, there is no evidence for design, not when alternative explanations are not only more parsimonious but demonstrated by repeated observation and experiment. The fact is that naturalistic explanations have been continually found for things that were formerly supposed designed. All that ID ‘theory’ has left to assert is that the march of scientific discovery will halt at certain points, but that is a premature assertion.

 

[Sair]

Sair:

Please provide an example of something that is not designed.

Where would you like me to start? Design implies conscious intent, so the only things that are designed are those built by beings capable of forming conscious intent. There’s no evidence that conscious intent exists independently of a physical substrate, like a complex brain.

Do you actually see a difference? Our beliefs are grounded in the fact of Revelation;

On what basis do you assert that ‘Revelation’ is a fact? And why your revelation, and not those of Muslims or Hindus or any other religious revelations you reject as false? Your beliefs are grounded in dogged faith, not fact.

Your ideas have no grounding, utterly. In fact, your postulations imply an irremediable deprivation of grounding. Why do you not see that?

Uh, because it’s not true. My ideas have the only grounding possible for sentient beings - empirical grounding and verification through observation and experience.

You’re not a…foundationalist, are you?

 

[Sair]

Unjustified dogmatism.

Again, pot, meet kettle…

Irrelevant to the topic.

Hardly - the whole point of your arguments from design, faulty as they are, is to push a religious agenda.

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.**

And here’s the problem - you only think these things can be real if they don’t come from natural forces; in essence, they’re only real if they’re not real! That’s the basis on which your ‘argument’ is built.

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

I’ve made no such implication. I’ve never claimed we are passive spectators - that is your business, claiming that if the naturalistic proposition is true, ‘we’ are passive riders upon the physical reality of our existence. Your thinking is constrained by a deeply ingrained dualism.

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. **

I don’t worship science. I find it fascinating, enlightening and - yes - even revelatory, but I don’t prostrate myself before it, bend my will to it nor invest any belief in the infallibility of its findings.

And neuroscientists are working on explanations of how thought arises. I would ask this, though, in light of my previous comment - how do you imagine that thought consists of thoughtless processes? That is just ridiculous. Obviously, thought consists of thoughtful processes. But unless these thoughtful processes are somehow magical or spiritual or nonphysical, it seems you won’t acknowledge their legitimacy.

 

[Sair]

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…

Your separation of such qualities as wetness from qualities such as consciousness is artificial at best, arrogant at worst. You assume we’re dealing with differences of kind, when it’s much more likely to be differences of degree.

What naturalistic explanations offer is deep understanding, while supernaturalist explanations offer only speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[Sair]

…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…

But all the most valuable and significant aspects of reality - at least as we experience it - arise from what you claim to be the ‘least interesting, informative and fruitful’ explanations. Doesn’t your own religion tell you that you came from dust and will return to dust?

And the fact is that it doesn’t even matter that our existence is meaningless in the grand scheme of the universe. We have the capacity to make our own meanings, and some people have taken this to the extent of creating religious narratives that allow people to believe they have some great cosmic significance. Others, like myself, see the meanings of life in a very different light.

And how can we be ‘mindless machines’ if we have minds and exercise the powers of thought and creativity? You’re mistaking the scientific endeavours to explain these things as a conspiracy to explain them away.

 

[tonyrey]

*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. *

Your parsimony prevents you from explaining how thoughtful and purposeful activity is derived from thoughtless and purposeless processes. Any suggestions? Or is your blind faith in science indefinitely sustainable?

The fact is that naturalistic explanations have been continually found for things that were formerly supposed designed.

“things” not “persons”…

All that ID ‘theory’ has left to assert is that the march of scientific discovery will halt at certain points, but that is a premature assertion.

Did “the march of scientific discovery” commence with scientific discovery? On precisely what is it based?

 

[tonyrey]

But all the most valuable and significant aspects of reality - at least as we experience it - arise from what you claim to be the ‘least interesting, informative and fruitful’ explanations.

Yet another categorical, dogmatic assertion which remains unsubstantiated. How does truth emerge from purposeless events?

Doesn’t your own religion tell you that you came from dust and will return to dust?

Your snippet fails to point out the context - which is certainly not that of incredibly powerful atomic particles supposed to explain **every single aspect of existence **- including all your beliefs, thoughts, choices, decisions and- most significantly of all - your conclusions.What does it feel like to be a molecular puppet?

And the fact is that it doesn’t even matter that our existence is meaningless in the grand scheme of the universe.

I agree - if you are capable of magically conjuring up meaning from meaninglessness…

We have the capacity to make our own meanings…

How?

… and some people have taken this to the extent of creating religious narratives that allow people to believe they have some great cosmic significance.

In other words all meaning is arbitrary - including the narrative that there is no significance - or meaning - in anything whatsoever (except of course for those who have privileged insight into the nature of reality - like materialists.)

Others, like myself, see the meanings of life in a very different light.

You have made it abundantly clear your “meanings” are solidly based on meaningless events…

And how can we be ‘mindless machines’ if we have minds and exercise the powers of thought and creativity?

Precisely! You are the one who needs to answer that question - in view of your** mechanistic i**nterpretation of reality.

You’re mistaking the scientific endeavours to explain these things as a conspiracy to explain them away.

An ad hominem which is also sheer nonsense!

 

[tonyrey]

Unjustified dogmatism.

Unlike you I do not assert dogmatically that **there is simply no evidence **of any lack of planning.

• not when the circumstances of our existence are far more parsimoniously explained by unthinking physical forces.

I do assert dogmatically that our existence is far more parsimoniously explained by one Being than by unthinking physical forces because it is evident to any reasonable person that “one” is more parsimonious than “forces”.

Irrelevant to the topic.

Hardly - the whole point of your arguments from design, faulty as they are, is to push a religious agenda.

It baffles me how anyone who is supposed to be arguing rationally in a philosophical discussion can constantly resort to so many fallacious argumenta ad hominem which do precisely nothing to further the discussion.

What would be your response to “The whole point of your arguments against Design, faulty as they are, is to push an atheistic agenda?”

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.**

And here’s the problem - you only think these things can be real if they don’t come from natural forces; in essence, they’re only real if they’re not real! That’s the basis on which your ‘argument’ is built.

A demonstrably false assertion. I believe truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are real because they are intangible, scientifically inexplicable and the most important factors in every sane person’s life.

Your implication that the anti-Design proponent knows

we are passive spectators rather than creative agents is not only blatantly false but self-refuting. I’ve made no such implication. I’ve never claimed we are passive spectators - that is your business, claiming that if the naturalistic proposition is true, ‘we’ are passive riders upon the physical reality of our existence. Your thinking is constrained by a deeply ingrained dualism.

Your claim that we are the **products of natural forces logically entails that we are passive spectators because you suppose all our activity **has physical causes.

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. **

I don’t worship science. I find it fascinating, enlightening and - yes - even revelatory, but I don’t prostrate myself before it, bend my will to it nor invest any belief in the infallibility of its findings.

In what other source of knowledge do you have such blind faith, trust and confidence?

And neuroscientists are working on explanations of how thought arises.

! Indomitable faith based on what? An unjustified assumption that the whole of reality consists solely of what we can hear, see, taste, smell and touch? Are explanations themselves detectable?

I would ask this, though, in light of my previous comment - how do you imagine that thought consists of thoughtless processes? That is just ridiculous. Obviously, thought consists of thoughtful processes. But unless these thoughtful processes are somehow magical or spiritual or nonphysical, it seems you won’t acknowledge their legitimacy.

If neuroscientists are working on explanations of how thought arises thoughts must consist of thoughtless processes, i.e. electrical impulses. How on earth can they be distinct? You cannot have it both ways…

 

[tonyrey]

There seems to be confusion about thoughts and brain activity. There seem only three possibilities:

1. Thoughts are minute electrical impulses in the brain.
2. Thoughts are produced by electrical impulses in the brain.
3. Thoughts cause electrical impulses in the brain.

The first two possibilities rule out independent thinking because thoughts would be caused by physical processes. It would be impossible for us to control our thoughts if they were no more than biochemical events. Yet the power of the mind is strong evidence that we are not helpless spectators of our mental processes. Hypnosis is based on the ability to influence both the mind and the body without any physical intervention. Ideas alone are enough to transform a person’s way of life.

To a large extent our personal world is what we make it. We are not slaves of our genes and environment but to a large extent responsible for what we are and what we become - saints or devils. There is no other alternative: either we have some degree of self-control or none at all. It is impossible for materialists to escape from this dilemma. They need to explain how we can possibly be responsible for our activity, regardless of whether it is mental or physical, if our thoughts are the results of what occurs inside our skull.

 

[Sair]

There seems to be confusion about thoughts and brain activity. There seem only three possibilities:

1. Thoughts are minute electrical impulses in the brain.
2. Thoughts are produced by electrical impulses in the brain.
3. Thoughts cause electrical impulses in the brain.

The first two possibilities rule out independent thinking because thoughts would be caused by physical processes. It would be impossible for us to control our thoughts if they were no more than biochemical events. Yet the power of the mind is strong evidence that we are not helpless spectators of our mental processes. Hypnosis is based on the ability to influence both the mind and the body without any physical intervention. Ideas alone are enough to transform a person’s way of life.

To a large extent our personal world is what we make it. We are not slaves of our genes and environment but to a large extent responsible for what we are and what we become - saints or devils. There is no other alternative: either we have some degree of self-control or none at all. It is impossible for materialists to escape from this dilemma. They need to explain how we can possibly be responsible for our activity, regardless of whether it is mental or physical, if our thoughts are the results of what occurs inside our skull.

This all, of course, assumes that there is some such thing as a ‘we’ that exists apart from the processes that manifest our conscious awareness and our ability to think and choose. I recommend reading Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves to find a way out of the dualist quagmire…

 

[tonyrey]

*There seems to be confusion about thoughts and brain activity. There seem only three possibilities:

Please answer a simple question:

What are thoughts in your opinion?

 

[Sair]

Please answer a simple question:

What are thoughts in your opinion?

Whilst I wonder why I should answer your ‘simple’ question when you have consistently refused to acknowledge that you are a dyed-in-the-wool dualist when it comes to any possible explanation of consciousness and thought, I will answer that with the present state of scientific investigation, my opinion is that thought is the product of neurological activity - how could it be otherwise? You may think it is the product of ‘spiritual’ interaction with the physical brain, although you refuse to acknowledge this; but until you have evidence of a nonphysical, independent entity such as a soul, you haven’t a philosophical or empirical leg to stand on in that regard.

What does it mean to you have to suppose that we have ‘independent’ thought? That none of our neurological activity has any impact upon the “thoughts” of our “souls”? How does that work? Details, please, if you’re so confident you’re right.

 

[Sair]

In short, to bring this whole discussion to a much-needed conclusion, there is no evidence for design - there is only faith in a divine designer on the part of those who exercise same, and who are hell-bent upon denying the efficacy and reach of empirical, scientific enquiry when it threatens to destroy their fantasies.

 

[tonyrey]

…my opinion is that thought is the product of neurological activity - how could it be otherwise?

Thought is only thought is the product of neurological activity for materialists.

What does it mean to you have to suppose that we have ‘independent’ thought?

We can think independently if we can control our thoughts to a certain extent.

That none of our neurological activity has any impact upon the “thoughts” of our “souls”?

Non sequitur. The ability to control our thoughts does not imply that there is no interaction between mental and physical events.

How does that work?

1. I do not claim to understand the fundamental nature of reality. Do you?
2. Do you believe we have any control over our thoughts?
3. If so how do we exercise that control?
4. If not how can we be responsible for our thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

In short, to bring this whole discussion to a much-needed conclusion, there is no evidence for design - there is only faith in a divine designer on the part of those who exercise same, and who are hell-bent upon denying the efficacy and reach of empirical, scientific enquiry when it threatens to destroy their fantasies.

1. You are entitled to your opinions.
2. Whether your opinions are valid is another matter.
3. Your diatribe is irrelevant, does nothing to further the discussion, reveals an irrational hostility towards religion, consists of false assertions about the motives of those who disagree with your opinions and infringes the conduct rules of this forum.

 

[tonyrey]

Thought is only thought is the product of neurological activity for materialists.

Correction:

Thought is the product of neurological activity only in the **opinion **of materialists who regard the mind as no more than a set of electrical impulses.

 

[tonyrey]

In short, to bring this whole discussion to a much-needed conclusion…

A “needed” conclusion is not a valid justification for a rational conclusion!