Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Candide_West]

Hello, Candide:

Considering the subject, I think it’s more appropriate to ask, “Whether anyone has found evidence for ‘non-design’ yet?” It seems to me that “design,” in this context, refers to everything - right on down to the most fundamental particles and their actions.

“Design” is defined as, “production resulting from rational thought.” That is to say, by someone, or something, that has viewed all things from a much wider perspective than from a simple, single-use part of a complex system.

Tony, it you wish to correct that, please do.

God bless,
jd

Hi Jd,

Er, but the subject here is “Conclusive evidence for Design”. I’m just asking if there is any. I’ve read over numerous pages of this thread but haven’t heard any evidence mentioned as yet. So thought I’d ask.

Incidentally definitions of design that I know of are as follows (I used Merriam Webster)

Definition of DESIGN

transitive verb

1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive

2 a: to conceive and plan out in the mind
b: to have as a purpose : intend
c: to devise for a specific function or end

3: archaic: to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name

4 a: to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of
b: to draw the plans for
intransitive verb

1: to conceive or execute a plan
2: to draw, lay out, or prepare a design

 

[tonyrey]

Considering the subject, I think it’s more appropriate to ask, “Whether anyone has found evidence for ‘non-design’ yet?” It seems to me that “design,” in this context, refers to everything - right on down to the most fundamental particles and their actions.

“Design” is defined as, “production resulting from rational thought.” That is to say, by someone, or something, that has viewed all things from a much wider perspective than from a simple, single-use part of a complex system.

Tony, it you wish to correct that, please do.

Impossible, JD!

 

[tonyrey]

I’m probably going to repeat something someone else has said, but here goes:

I’'ve read through the last few pages of responses, and I have to say that I’m not satisfied with the theistic conclusions. I think that both naturalism and theism are both equally valid possiblilitiesif we look simply at nature, our own minds ect.

However, I would like to point out that there is one consequence of naturalism that nobody ever seems to reach. If naturalism is true, then every chemical reaction in the universe has consciousness at some level! In short, the universe itself is somehow alive.

The naturalists argue that consciousness is produced by chemical reactions but they never explain how that magical effect is achieved! It obviously demands immense faith in the unparallelled power of purposeless particles…

 

[zro_x]

The naturalists argue that consciousness is produced by chemical reactions but they never explain how that magical effect is achieved! It obviously demands immense faith in the unparallelled power of purposeless particles…

This seems like the God of the Gaps argument. If science can’t explain something, it must have a supernatural cause.

 

[JDaniel]

The naturalists argue that consciousness is produced by chemical reactions but they never explain how that magical effect is achieved! It obviously demands immense faith in the unparallelled power of purposeless particles…

Tony:

So, when I was in school, performing all of those chemistry experiments in all of those test tubes, I was producing thoughts? Wow. and I just dumped them down the drain!

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

This seems like the God of the Gaps argument. If science can’t explain something, it must have a supernatural cause.

It seems to me far more like the science of the gaps argument. Even if science can’t explain something it must have a natural cause. After all it will eventually explain everything - including scientists. Won’t it?

So we have a delightful merry-go-round:

Science explains scientists who explain everything including scientists who explain science…

BTW What exactly does “natural” mean?

 

[zro_x]

It seems to me far more like the science of the gaps argument. Even if science can’t explain something it must have a natural cause. After all it will eventually explain everything - including scientists. Won’t it?

We can’t draw any conclusions from the scientific inability to explain consciousness. It may have a natural cause, and it may have a supernatual cause. Jumping to either conclusion is falicious. For now, the origin of consciousness must remain an open question.

 

[buffalo]

This seems like the God of the Gaps argument. If science can’t explain something, it must have a supernatural cause.

and the god of BUC is always there to fill what science doesn’t know.

 

[zro_x]

@ buffalo

I did a little more thinking about polygenesis, and I came to the conclusion that it really isn’t a threat to Catholicism after all. Cain, Abel, Seth, and rest of Adam and Eve’s children could have mated with other biological humans, who would not have immortal souls and were therefore spiritually animals. The offspring of a biological human and a spiritual human would always be a spiritual human. Eventually, all the non-spiritual humans would die out. Thus, Adam and Eve could have been part of a population of “humans” and still be the stem of all humans today.

 

[Candide_West]

We can’t draw any conclusions from the scientific inability to explain consciousness. It may have a natural cause, and it may have a supernatual cause. Jumping to either conclusion is falicious. For now, the origin of consciousness must remain an open question.

This sees reasonable.

I would only add that to date every activity of the human body which we have come to understand has turned out to be… NOT supernatural. And the research to date strongly indicates that this will turn out to be the case with consciousness as well. Nonetheless, it is at least possible that on this occasion the answer will indeed turn out to be magical.

 

[buffalo]

This sees reasonable.

I would only add that to date every activity of the human body which we have come to understand has turned out to be… NOT supernatural. And the research to date strongly indicates that this will turn out to be the case with consciousness as well. Nonetheless, it is at least possible that on this occasion the answer will indeed turn out to be magical.

Are you a design denier? The language of DNA is designed and came from a mind.

 

[tonyrey]

We can’t draw any conclusions from the scientific inability to explain consciousness. It may have a natural cause, and it may have a supernatual cause. Jumping to either conclusion is falicious. For now, the origin of consciousness must remain an open question.

Precisely! So there is no reason to believe in “God of the gaps” or “science of the gaps”. Philosophy can lead to a more comprehensive, more fundamental and more inspiring interpretation of reality than explanations of “natural” events, whatever that still undefined term may mean…

 

[tonyrey]

Tony:

So, when I was in school, performing all of those chemistry experiments in all of those test tubes, I was producing thoughts? Wow. and I just dumped them down the drain!

It just goes to show that although we **think **we’re thoughtful all of us are thoughtless! Unthinking atomic particles have the power to create absolutely everything without the slightest difficulty - given enough time of course! Let us venerate them as the be-all-and-end-all of existence…

 

[JDaniel]

It seems to me far more like the science of the gaps argument. Even if science can’t explain something it must have a natural cause. After all it will eventually explain everything - including scientists. Won’t it?

So we have a delightful merry-go-round:

Science explains scientists who explain everything including scientists who explain science…

BTW What exactly does “natural” mean?

Tony:

I think it means, “weedy,” in other words, it occurs like a weed occurs. But, I could be wrong.

God bless,
jd

 

[Candide_West]

Are you a design denier? The language of DNA is designed and came from a mind.

In order to be a “design denier” presumably I would need to have something to deny? Thus far I’ve not been given anything to deny (beyond baseless assertions like the one you provided above of course).

Unless of course you by the same argument classify people as “Bigfoot deniers”, “lochness monster deniers”, “fairy deniers”, “alien abduction deniers”… Etc.

My question again was whether any evidence of design (other than things which were designed by humans).

 

[JDaniel]

Hi Jd,

Er, but the subject here is “Conclusive evidence for Design”. I’m just asking if there is any. I’ve read over numerous pages of this thread but haven’t heard any evidence mentioned as yet. So thought I’d ask.

Incidentally definitions of design that I know of are as follows (I used Merriam Webster)

Definition of DESIGN

transitive verb

1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive

2 a: to conceive and plan out in the mind
b: to have as a purpose : intend
c: to devise for a specific function or end

3: archaic: to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name

4 a: to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of
b: to draw the plans for
intransitive verb

1: to conceive or execute a plan
2: to draw, lay out, or prepare a design

Candide:

Strange how it parallels mine.

Now, as far as, er, is there any conclusive evidence for design? Yes: the sheer and total lack of naturality.

Oops! Unless naturality = design.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

We can’t draw any conclusions from the scientific inability to explain consciousness. It may have a natural cause, and it may have a supernatual cause. Jumping to either conclusion is falicious. For now, the origin of consciousness must remain an open question.

Zro x:

Can you give an example of a natural cause?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

This sees reasonable.

I would only add that to date every activity of the human body which we have come to understand has turned out to be… NOT supernatural.

Candide:

What were they then? Extraterrestrial?

And the research to date strongly indicates that this will turn out to be the case with consciousness as well. Nonetheless, it is at least possible that on this occasion the answer will indeed turn out to be magical.

Or, it may turn out to be really unanswerable by science.

God bless,
jd

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

Strange how it parallels mine.

Yes, I wasn’t disagreeing with your definition. I just thought I’d suggest a bit more detail for clarity.

Now, as far as, er, is there any conclusive evidence for design? Yes: the sheer and total lack of naturality.

So you are contending that your evidence for things being designed is that they’re not natural? How are you defining natural in this context?

Oops! Unless naturality = design.

??? I’m not sure what this means. Please clarify.

 

[zro_x]

Candide:

Strange how it parallels mine.

Now, as far as, er, is there any conclusive evidence for design? Yes: the sheer and total lack of naturality.

Oops! Unless naturality = design.

God bless,
jd

oops! there’s God of the gaps again!