Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Doxus]

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

A spurious conclusion, itself demeaning. Nothing wrong with showing that you have a strong opinion on the subject. Atheist forums that I peruse, for instance, don’t waste time chastising Christians for being demeaning, condescending, rude, or for proselytizing. Even a degree of vitriol is permitted as long as it doesn’t start spilling over into other threads.

Over-analyzing a snarky comment that pointed out a circular argument as if there is some deep philosophical meaning behind it? That’s just pretentious. Oh, and however much holier than I you may be, acting holier-than-thou accomplishes nothing. I will admit it is fun though, hence this post.

Basically, stop being so serious, grow a thicker skin, and laugh now and then.

 

[Candide_West]

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?

I didn’t make any assertion. I don’t know of any reliable method of detecting design.Once again it is YOU who is saying that you are able to detect design. I am simply asking by what criteria you do this.

To date you have put forwards one suggestion, the UPB. And between us we have demonstrated why it is utterly insufficient. If you still believe you are able to detect design, then I’ll ask yet again. HOW? What criteria do you use?*

Really unless you can answer that simple question then there’s nothing else to say on the topic because you have no evidence of design and you have no method to even seek evidence of design.*

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t make any assertion. I don’t know of any reliable method of detecting design.Once again it is YOU who is saying that you are able to detect design. I am simply asking by what criteria you do this.

To date you have put forwards one suggestion, the UPB. And between us we have demonstrated why it is utterly insufficient. If you still believe you are able to detect design, then I’ll ask yet again. HOW? What criteria do you use?*

Really unless you can answer that simple question then there’s nothing else to say on the topic because you have no evidence of design and you have no method to even seek evidence of design.*

It starts on how we detect it, so answer the question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

The same problem exists if you are compelled to state the outcome before you perform the shuffle.

Having any one outcome on the first shuffle is a certainty, but having a particular designated outcome is what makes it wildly improbable. It is the designation of the outcome that is crucial - that is the specification that makes a specified outcome different in kind from a complex one.

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.*

The origin of life is an important case because the question is whether or not it is simply a question of probability like getting a perfect bridge hand or whether it is more like getting five aces in poker.

As I pointed out in the ant situation, the highly complex coding sequence that arises from the ordering of the bases along the spines of the DNA molecule has no molecular explanation. It is not because of chemical bonding or any other known physical cause and yet the ordering is crucial because it specifies the information necessary for life to exist and replicate.

A royal flush, even though highly improbable, can result from the cards found in the deck (organic compounds) and the way in which the cards are dealt out (chemical processes), but when you find an anomaly like having five aces in your hand (DNA coding) that isn’t explained by the cards found in a deck or how they were dealt, it makes sense to question whether chance can account for the outcome.

As in any “game” if one is dealt a highly advantageous hand which is at the same time highly improbable, it makes sense to wonder if other factors were at play and whether, in fact, the hand was merely highly improbable and not something more.

When we look at the aligning if the cosmological constants at the Big Bang event, the DNA coding necessary for the origin of life and the high improbability of the features that make the earth the life sustaining place it is, why would it not be natural to begin to suspect something other than chance is at play? The analogy would be more like being dealt numerous straight flushes in series. You begin to wonder, no?

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).

The ordering of amino acids to produce even a minimally functional protein is highly specified. Not just any outcome would do. The ordering of amino acids to comprise proteins could be compared to being dealt cards. To have a functional protein you would need to have been dealt a series of 150 cards in a very specified sequence because each card dealt can be followed only by particular card in designated order for the protein card chain to become a functional one. This is the “predetermined” requirement for functional proteins to form. Simply because we did not predetermine the requirement does not mean the requirement was not predetermined.

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.

Perhaps, but if the outcome is analogous to attempting to construct a card house from the dealt cards in a howling windstorm, then probability may not even be a consideration. Regardless, no amount of probability disproves design.

 

[Candide_West]

It starts on how we detect it, so answer the question.

??? So you’re saying that you aren’t going to give me your criteria for detecting design unless I first give you a criteria for detecting design (something that I have repeatedly stated I do not have)?

So before you are willing to answer a simple question you require that the person asking it to give you the answer that you’re going to give them? Tell me honestly, Are you a consultant? I’m sure I’ve had similar situations with those guys before where they try to get me to lend them my watch so that they can charge me to tell me the time.

 

[Candide_West]

The same problem exists if you are compelled to state the outcome before you perform the shuffle.

Having any one outcome on the first shuffle is a certainty, but having a particular designated outcome is what makes it wildly improbable. It is the designation of the outcome that is crucial - that is the specification that makes a specified outcome different in kind from a complex one.*

Sure, but the snag is that means you need to specify the outcome before the shuffle. It’s no good coming along after the shuffle, noting that the odds of that arrangement arriving by chance is stupendously unlikely and therefore deeming it must have been designed.*

The origin of life is an important case because the question is whether or not it is simply a question of probability like getting a perfect bridge hand or whether it is more like getting five aces in poker.

…

As in any “game” if one is dealt a highly advantageous hand which is at the same time highly improbable, it makes sense to wonder if other factors were at play and whether, in fact, the hand was merely highly improbable and not something more.

Sure, but that’s where the next problem arrives, you need to be able to separate “design” from “non- designed and non-random”. Probability is fundamentally unable to separate an improbable “designed” outcome from an equally improbable “non-designed and non-random” outcome.*

Perhaps, but if the outcome is analogous to attempting to construct a card house from the dealt cards in a howling windstorm, then probability may not even be a consideration. Regardless, no amount of probability disproves design.

True, and by the same token no amount of probability shows design either. Which was essentially my point regarding the UPB. It is fundamentally insufficient.

 

[buffalo]

??? So you’re saying that you aren’t going to give me your criteria for detecting design unless I first give you a criteria for detecting design (something that I have repeatedly stated I do not have)?

So before you are willing to answer a simple question you require that the person asking it to give you the answer that you’re going to give them? Tell me honestly, Are you a consultant? I’m sure I’ve had similar situations with those guys before where they try to get me to lend them my watch so that they can charge me to tell me the time.

C’mon - you have no criteria for even beginning to think that the computer is designed vs the rock? I don’'t buy it.

 

[JDaniel]

A spurious conclusion, itself demeaning. Nothing wrong with showing that you have a strong opinion on the subject. Atheist forums that I peruse, for instance, don’t waste time chastising Christians for being demeaning, condescending, rude, or for proselytizing. Even a degree of vitriol is permitted as long as it doesn’t start spilling over into other threads.

Over-analyzing a snarky comment that pointed out a circular argument as if there is some deep philosophical meaning behind it? That’s just pretentious. Oh, and however much holier than I you may be, acting holier-than-thou accomplishes nothing. I will admit it is fun though, hence this post.

Basically, stop being so serious, grow a thicker skin, and laugh now and then.

Doxus:

I have an extraordinarily thick skin, I’ll have you know! It deflects all sorts of bullets. You will grow to understand that the mods will give an inch, but not a yard. Just trying to let you know what’s expected, unless you don’t care. If you don’t, then I take it all back.

Just trying to be helpful and I get my head bitten off. You’re now out of my will.

God bless,
jd

 

[Peter_Plato]

True, and by the same token no amount of probability shows design either. Which was essentially my point regarding the UPB. It is fundamentally insufficient.

Apply this to Buffalo’s question about the computer.

Suppose 10 million years in the future, inhabitants of earth come across the laptop, the only remaining evidence from our current civilization. Their quandary would be, Is it designed or natural given the strange configuration of its components?

Further suppose that after years of tampering with the electronic components, the scientists “decode” the information stored on the drive and begin to use the code to reconstruct the functional elements of the code and use it to complete tasks with current equipment. Would these scientists have sufficient warrant to propose some kind of design from the functional code in the computer given that the code would have no physical connection to natural origin, although it resided in the physical components of the computer? The functionality of the code is layered “on top of” and not a necessary aspect of the physical components.

Isn’t DNA “functional” under the same terms, since, there is no physical explanation for its origin? Yet, we are reverse engineering the code and uncovering functionality that has no discernible physical cause.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I am not aware of any scientific conclusions to that effect. The multiverse hypothesis, and membrane hypothesis, and several others quite clearly allow for the existence of an eternal, infinite “universe” that contains ours. Researchers are currently investigating methods in which these hypotheses may be tested; unfortunately it will be decades before we know for sure.

This is known as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, and it holds to any expansionary universe or multiverse regardless of the initial conditions of said hypothetical universes. To quote Alexander Vilinkin: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

The fine tuning argument boils down to a tautology: “If things were different, things were be different.” There’s nothing to indicate that ours is the only possible universe that can support some form of life. And are you not familiar with the Weak Anthropic Principle? Simply put, the reason the universe appears finely tuned to support life is because if it couldn’t support life, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Another tautology.

Actually, there’s a lot to indicate that ours is one of very few, if not the only, possible universe that can support life. For example, if the weak nuclear force were altered by just ONE part in 10^100 (for emphasis thats 1 part out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) the universe would not permit life. A difference of 1 in 10^120 in the cosmological constant would also make life impossible. The design argument is not a tautology and your phrasing of it is pure straw.

And yes, I’m familiar with the weak anthropic principle. However, it is a statement of the obvious which has no bearing on the fact that there is no reason why the universe should have produced observers. To hand the figurative “mic” over to someone much more eloquent than I:

*"‘The basic features of the Universe, including such properties as its shape, size, age, and laws of change must be observed to be of a type that allows the evolution of observers, for if intelligent life did not evolve in an otherwise possible universe, it is obvious that no one would be asking the reason for the observed shape, size, age, and so forth of the universe’ (pp. 1-2). Thus, our own existence acts as a selection effect in assessing the various properties of the universe. For example, a life form which evolved on an earthlike planet ‘must necessarily see the Universe to be at least several billion years old and … several billion light years across,’ for this is the time necessary for production of the elements essential to life and so forth (p. 3).

Now, we might ask, why is the ‘observed’ in the quotation in the above paragraph italicized? Why not omit the word altogether? The answer is that the resulting statement:

1. The basic features of the universe must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers

is undoubtedly false; for it is not logically or nomologically necessary that the universe embrace intelligent life. Rather what seems to be necessarily true is

1. If the universe is observed by observers which have evolved within it, then its basic features must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers within it.

But (2) seems quite trivial; it does nothing to explain why the universe in fact has the basic features it does." - William Lane Craig on the W.A.P*

Current theories allow the existence of multiple universes. And we do not yet know what determines the boundary conditions of a universe. Maybe there’s some natural law governing why universes form the way they do, or not. We don’t know yet.

And then you are forced to ask: Where did that natural law come from? Why does it exist? Why does it function as it does? No matter how many new laws you discover, you are still faced with the same question. And there must eventually be a singular, self-sufficient source of all that exists.

I’ll have to do more research on that, I’m not familiar with that area of Catholic theology. The majority of theists I have argued with have been Protestant and believed strongly in dualism.

Ah, so that’s the problem.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Sorry, you’re thinking of the wrong experiment. That’s the so-called “God Helmet” made by Stanley Koren. I’m talking about much more recent experiments using direct transcranial magnetic stimulation of that region of the brain. I believe the research was only published in 2010; have to check up on that. Regardless, it didn’t work for all subjects, but for some subjects, all of whom were already religious, stimulation of that section of the brain consistently produced feelings of religiosity and god.

First, let me say I’m not trying to prove God through this particular point, but only pointing out that the results of this study again really have no bearing on the question from the perspective of hylemorphic dualism. The body is the instrument through which we experience things. If you stimulate one area of the brain and it produces feelings of being full, does that disprove the existence of food? No. Our brains are “designed” (for lack of a more neutral term) to respond to certain things in certain ways. So the fact that the human experience of God might have a physical/neurological component is entirely to be expected. Our brains are not something entirely separate from our souls.

If the “presence of god” can be invoked without the need for a god to intervene, I think that does cast some doubt on the whole game, doesn’t it? Of course you can’t disprove god’s involvement. God is nonfalsifiable, the concept can’t even be tested in any meaningful way. But if god is not required, then how can you say for sure that he is involved in your case?

Going back to the previous analogy, some drugs may trick the brain into thinking the stomach is full of food, but to suggest that food is an illusion produced by the brain would be ludicrous. So while God may not be as obvious a reality as food, the ability to trick the brain into religious experience cannot be invoked to disprove or cast doubt on His existence.

Further, and most importantly, I would venture to say a great deal of religious believers probably never or rarely have experiences of such as you speak, so it’s not a major area of concern.

 

[Doxus]

Apply this to Buffalo’s question about the computer.

Suppose 10 million years in the future, inhabitants of earth come across the laptop, the only remaining evidence from our current civilization. Their quandary would be, Is it designed or natural given the strange configuration of its components?

Further suppose that after years of tampering with the electronic components, the scientists “decode” the information stored on the drive and begin to use the code to reconstruct the functional elements of the code and use it to complete tasks with current equipment. Would these scientists have sufficient warrant to propose some kind of design from the functional code in the computer given that the code would have no physical connection to natural origin, although it resided in the physical components of the computer? The functionality of the code is layered “on top of” and not a necessary aspect of the physical components.

Isn’t DNA “functional” under the same terms, since, there is no physical explanation for its origin? Yet, we are reverse engineering the code and uncovering functionality that has no discernible physical cause.

By what reasoning do you assert that DNA contains “code” that has “no discernible physical cause”?

The Pope himself has declared that the Catholic church accepts evolution. You can still deny abiogenesis or the Big Bang (though in the latter case disbelief is ridiculous as it does not contradict your position), but we know that evolution works and we know how it works, including how the genomes of organisms evolved.

I recommend starting here, honestly: books.google.com/books/about/Evolution_For_Dummies.html?id=n-C9qW5UPL4C

No, I’m not calling you a dummy. I used those books to learn calculus, there’s nothing wrong with them. Give it a shot, your arguments will be more sound for it.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Every reasonable person accepts the validity of conclusions based on mathematical probability.
2. Mathematical probability is not a human invention.
3. Mathematical probability corresponds to physical reality.
4. The expression of that correspondence consists of human symbols.
5. The expression is valid whatever symbols are used.
6. Mathematical analysis presupposes comprehension of physical reality.
7. The ability to comprehend physical reality is not fortuitous.
8. The comprehensibility of physical reality is not fortuitous.
9. The existence of rational beings is not fortuitous.
10. The existence of rational beings is conclusive evidence that reality has a rational foundation.

 

[Candide_West]

Hello folks,

well this is going to be my final post on this thread since there are now very few left before it is closed down for hitting the post limit and I want to leave space for others to put down their final thoughts.

It’s been an interesting discussion from my point of view. I started off with a single question - whether anyone knows of any evidence of design - and unfortunately I have come away from this thread with that question still remaining unanswered. I have a suspicion that the reason for that is that those design proponents writing here know full well that they don’t have anything that would meet the standard to be considered evidence of design. Since if they had confidence in any evidence I believe they would be more than willing to share it. Obviously I cannot be sure of this, they may have other reasons for not talking about their evidence.

It’s been a somewhat frustrating discussion regarding criteria for detecting design. Again it was somewhat surprising to me that no criteria beyond the failed UPB were even suggested for detecting design. I’m not sure if this is because there are no reliable criteria for detecting design, my interlocutors don’t know them or because they are so general as to be useless (the old “it sure looks designed to me” criteria).

If anyone knows of any reliable criteria for detecting design in an object or set of information, or even better any actual evidence of design then I’d be interested to discuss, either via PM or on another thread.

Otherwise, thankyou for the discussion and best wishes in all your future endevours.

 

[tonyrey]

Hello folks,

well this is going to be my final post on this thread since there are now very few left before it is closed down for hitting the post limit and I want to leave space for others to put down their final thoughts.

It’s been an interesting discussion from my point of view. I started off with a single question - whether anyone knows of any evidence of design - and unfortunately I have come away from this thread with that question still remaining unanswered. I have a suspicion that the reason for that is that those design proponents writing here know full well that they don’t have anything that would meet the standard to be considered evidence of design. Since if they had confidence in any evidence I believe they would be more than willing to share it. Obviously I cannot be sure of this, they may have other reasons for not talking about their evidence.

It’s been a somewhat frustrating discussion regarding criteria for detecting design. Again it was somewhat surprising to me that no criteria beyond the failed UPB were even suggested for detecting design. I’m not sure if this is because there are no reliable criteria for detecting design, my interlocutors don’t know them or because they are so general as to be useless (the old “it sure looks designed to me” criteria).

If anyone knows of any reliable criteria for detecting design in an object or set of information, or even better any actual evidence of design then I’d be interested to discuss, either via PM or on another thread.

Otherwise, thankyou for the discussion and best wishes in all your future endevours.

Thank you for your participation. May you be successful in your search for a rational explanation of reality!

 

[tonyrey]

I wish to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. Thanks to you it has been very lively, fascinating and thought-provoking. “Design” has caused so much confusion I’ve decided the title of the sequel will be simply “Why are we (usually) reasonable?” I hope you will enjoy it as much as I’ve enjoyed this one.

 

[JDaniel]

Design - an effect (or series/system of effects) created or made by an efficient cause, or creator, that shows, by dialectic, or brute fact, that it reflects reason and purpose, for its existence, normal actions and duration, even with imprecision.

Design illuminates to us that there is considerably more to an effect than the simple reflection that the effect, or its ingredients, are a mere meeting ground of coincidences.

Nature has a determinate means to attain its ends and therefore it need not deliberate about them. The fact that nature tends toward ends in a fully determinate but not deliberating way is a sign that there is a perfect artist that is responsible for it. But, it was not a purpose of this thread to prove, by an argument from design, that such an artist exists. It is important here only to say that, if nature does not deliberate, the artist of nature has deliberated for it, as metaphysics shows.

Definition of ‘design’ from the Oxford Dictionary online appropriate to this topic:

From Latin designare ‘to designate’

[verb] do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind

[mass noun] purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object:
the appearance of design in the universe

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thank goodness most of the human race up to this point has been supremely rational and has not waited for the " blessings " of science to recognize that God, the creator, sustainer, and end of the universe exists. Bless His Holy Name now and forever. Amen.

 

[tonyrey]

Design - an effect (or series/system of effects) created or made by an efficient cause, or creator, that shows, by dialectic, or brute fact, that it reflects reason and purpose, for its existence, normal actions and duration, even with imprecision.

Design illuminates to us that there is considerably more to an effect than the simple reflection that the effect, or its ingredients, are a mere meeting ground of coincidences.

Nature has a determinate means to attain its ends and therefore it need not deliberate about them. The fact that nature tends toward ends in a fully determinate but not deliberating way is a sign that there is a perfect artist that is responsible for it. But, it was not a purpose of this thread to prove, by an argument from design, that such an artist exists. It is important here only to say that, if nature does not deliberate, the artist of nature has deliberated for it, as metaphysics shows.

Definition of ‘design’ from the Oxford Dictionary online appropriate to this topic:

From Latin designare ‘to designate’

[verb] do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind

[mass noun] purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object:
the appearance of design in the universe

God bless,
jd

A fitting conclusion, JD.

God bless

 

[tonyrey]

Thank goodness most of the human race up to this point has been supremely rational and has not waited for the " blessings " of science to recognize that God, the creator, sustainer, and end of the universe exists. Bless His Holy Name now and forever. Amen.

I fully share your sentiments, Linus.

God bless.