Definitive evidence for Design!

[aragonjohn1]

The term “science” is as nebulous as materialism with its undefined limits!

God bless

(I used to stay in Aragon regularly.

Yes,

That is both intriguing and interesting.

God bless You again

 

[Sair]

Those who attempt to destroy Design are attempting to destroy themselves!

Well, here’s the thing - we can’t destroy a theory that has not been established or supported by evidence.

The so-called ID ‘theorists’ have done nothing to actually demonstrate that the universe is designed. The supposedly knock-down concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ has been repeatedly debunked, and they’ve got nothing else.

And what does it matter if, in fact, our ‘selves’ turn out to be elaborate constructions of our neural activity? Does this affect the actual experience we have in any substantial way? So we might have to re-think a few intuitive assumptions - well, it wouldn’t be the first time. Human intuition works pretty reliably on the middle-sized scale in which we evolved to live; but it’s far from a perfect truth-seeking system.

 

[tonyrey]

Those who attempt to destroy Design are attempting to destroy themselves

Design is more than a theory; it is a fact we experience directly whenever we make rational decisions. If you disagree you are rejecting the value of your own reasoning.

The so-called ID ‘theorists’ have done nothing to actually demonstrate that the universe is designed. The supposedly knock-down concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ has been repeatedly debunked, and they’ve got nothing else.

How do you explain the increase in complexity?

And what does it matter if, in fact, our ‘selves’ turn out to be elaborate constructions of our neural activity?

It means “we” don’t exist!

Does this affect the actual experience we have in any substantial way? So we might have to re-think a few intuitive assumptions - well, it wouldn’t be the first time. Human intuition works pretty reliably on the middle-sized scale in which we evolved to live; but it’s far from a perfect truth-seeking system.

Rather than “a few intuitive assumptions” what is at stake is your very existence as an autonomous, rational being capable of **self-**control. The body is an inadequate substitute for the self…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes,

That is both intriguing and interesting.

God bless You again

The beauty of the snow-capped Pyrenees is undoubtedly evidence for Design.

 

[roselily]

Keats wrote '“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”. It is true beauty is a great source of inspiration but it is possible beauty exists only in the mind. Wouldn’t that alone account for the great masterpieces?

I saw Finding Life Beyond Earth; I knew that from Genesis we would understand.
youtube.com/watch?v=cfU0CFSL7fw

 

[Sair]

Design is more than a theory; it is a fact we experience directly whenever we make rational decisions. If you disagree you are rejecting the value of your own reasoning.

Well, of course we experience it - we are evolved, complex entities with the capability to manipulate our environment (to a certain extent, anyway). The idea that the universe was designed is something else entirely - a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. You’re attempting to equivocate here - our own capacity for design cannot simply be extrapolated to the birth and development of the universe. For one thing, no-one has ever provided any direct evidence of a designer of universes…

How do you explain the increase in complexity?

By the increase in possibilities allowed by simpler entities behaving according to their own limitations.

It means “we” don’t exist!

Only if you have a very, very specific idea of what ‘we’ are - in which case, you’re better informed than the most brilliant neuroscientist…or just extremely set in your ideas.

Rather than “a few intuitive assumptions” what is at stake is your very existence as an autonomous, rational being capable of **self-**control. The body is an inadequate substitute for the self…

Not if the body is what gives rise to the self in the first place. And again, this implies that you have a very specific, very confined idea of what a ‘self’ must be in the first place.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Design is more than a theory; it is a fact we experience directly whenever we make rational decisions. If you disagree you are rejecting the value of your own reasoning.

How do you explain the increase in complexity?

It means “we” don’t exist!

Rather than “a few intuitive assumptions” what is at stake is your very existence as an autonomous, rational being capable of **self-**control. The body is an inadequate substitute for the self…

It’s hopeless Tonyrey. Your opponent will accept no argument which threatens his beliefs and/or justifies a former but rejected faith.

 

[tonyrey]

Design is more than a theory; it is a fact we experience directly whenever we make rational decisions. If you disagree you are rejecting the value of your own reasoning.

The opponent is a lady, Linus, who wishes to have a discussion about the topic! Even if it were a gentleman it would be still be worth exchanging points of view.

John Keats said that if he wrote a fine sonnet that was destroyed before anyone read it he wouldn’t have wasted his time. In this case we know what we write will be read and so have no excuse for inactivity - especially if we’re dedicated to the pursuit of truth. Dialogue helps us to see things in perspective…

 

[tonyrey]

Design is more than a theory; it is a fact we experience directly whenever we make rational decisions. If you disagree you are rejecting the value of your own reasoning.

David Hume and many other sceptics have thought otherwise.

How do you explain the increase in complexity?

By the increase in possibilities allowed by simpler entities behaving according to their own limitations.

An increase in possibilities does not explain the increase in complexity. Monocells have survived successfully while multicellular organisms have become extinct, demonstrating that survival value is an inadequate explanation. The basic problem of what causes self-organization is insurmountable and there is no generally accepted solution among biologists.

It means “we” don’t exist.

Only if you have a very, very specific idea of what ‘we’ are - in which case, you’re better informed than the most brilliant neuroscientist…or just extremely set in your ideas.

Tu quoque, Sair! What is **your **specific idea?

Rather than “a few intuitive assumptions” what is at stake is your very existence as an autonomous, rational being capable of self-control. The body is an inadequate substitute for the self…

Not if the body is what gives rise to the self in the first place. And again, this implies that you have a very specific, very confined idea of what a ‘self’ must be in the first place.

“very confined” is a far more appropriate description of a “self” confined to brain activity, animal instincts and physical horizons than an independent person with a rational mind who transcends time and space and grasps the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love.

Design is more than a theory; it is a fact we experience directly whenever we make rational decisions. If you disagree you are rejecting the value of your own reasoning.

Well, of course we experience it - we are evolved, complex entities with the capability to manipulate our environment (to a certain extent, anyway).

Without accounting for it!

The idea that the universe was designed is something else entirely - a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence.

An accidental universe is a unverifiable hypothesis without a jot of evidence in its favour for anyone who recognises the fundamental role of reason in our lives. No normal person behaves as if everyone is irrational.

You’re attempting to equivocate here - our own capacity for design cannot simply be extrapolated to the birth and development of the universe.

Not equivocate but evaluate and elucidate the immense significance of the power of reason which is immeasurably greater than a “little agitation of the brain” as demonstrated by the astounding success of science and the sublime masterpieces created by humanity.

For one thing, no-one has ever provided any direct evidence of a designer of universes…

There is certainly none of a non-designer! The blind Goddess has never been demonstrated to have sufficient power, ingenuity and fertility of invention to produce all the marvels of Creation.

 

[Candide_West]

Hi,

So I’m curious, does anyone on this thread know of any definitive evidence of design? If so then what is it?

The key question nobody seemed able to answer on the previous thread was how to tell the difference between “designed” and “non-designed and non-random”.

Thanks

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi,

So I’m curious, does anyone on this thread know of any definitive evidence of design? If so then what is it?

The key question nobody seemed able to answer on the previous thread was how to tell the difference between “designed” and “non-designed and non-random”.

Thanks

Well candid, you are well acquainted with this topic, right? The evidence for design is before your very eyes. Ask any farmer, fisherman, any environmentalist, any scientist. If there wasn’t universal order in the universe and between all its systems, science itself wouldn’t be possible, matematics wouldn’t be possible, farming and fisning wouldn’t be possible, life wouldn’t be possible.

What you want ask is how do we know this universal order is " designed " not that there isn’t universal order, right?

Well, I know where you stand on this issue. You would say that all this order has no cause, that the universe itself has no cause, right ?

My answer would be that the " evidence " is clear but not so clear that no one could object because the " evidence " depends on how highly one values the ability of human reason to reach valid conclusions from the observation of reality. No one that I know can provide " scientific " evidence that cannot be denied. On the other hand on one can provide any evidence that there is no design and/ or that the universe has no cause and no final end. To me it seems much more the reasonable position is that which follows below.

I would say universal order implies design, that design means a universal plan, and a universal plan implies a goal toward which all systems tend. And such a plan and end imply a single source of this plan and end. And this can only be an Intelligent Being Who is Absolutely Other than and Outside of the universe itself.

This Intelligent Being is either caused Itself or uncaused. But we cannot proceed to infinity in causes which are themselves are caused for then there would be no First Cause and consequently no immediate Cause or no Immediately Intelligent being who caused, planned and directs the ordered systems of the universe to their appointed ends. So even now chaos would reign or, more fundamentally, no universe would exist. But this cannot be because the universe does exist and evidences a definite order throughout, and thus it acts for a definite end.

Therefore there exists an Uncaused Intelligent Being Who is radically other than the universe and Who exists Outside the universe itself, Who created the universe and is even now directing it toward a desired end. And I say this Being is the God of Christianity.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Hi,

So I’m curious, does anyone on this thread know of any definitive evidence of design? If so then what is it?

The key question nobody seemed able to answer on the previous thread was how to tell the difference between “designed” and “non-designed and non-random”.

Thanks

From what I’ve read of it, this thread seems to have a repeating pattern.

1. 
   *]The OP trots out a design argument (usually a varient of the argument from complexity).
   *]The atheist regulars on CAF respond to it with the usual questions regarding why complexity should infer design.
   *]The OP usually responds by stating that a non-designed universe undermines the process human reasoning (whatever that means).
   *]A long name calling session ensues.
   *]Everyone forgets whats been previously said and someone asks a question like you just asked.
   *]The thread repeats from step one.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From what I’ve read of it, this thread seems to have a repeating pattern.

1. 
   *]The OP trots out a design argument (usually a varient of the argument from complexity).
   *]The atheist regulars on CAF respond to it with the usual questions regarding why complexity should infer design.
   *]The OP usually responds by stating that a non-designed universe undermines the process human reasoning (whatever that means).
   *]A long name calling session ensues.
   *]Everyone forgets whats been previously said and someone asks a question like you just asked.
   *]The thread repeats from step one.

1. 
   Guilty as charged ! Yes, we do get carried away at times. But actually we all love each other. And even though the pattern is generally repeated, there are often new nuances which enlighten. Why don’t you contribute, it would offer some variety.

 

[tonyrey]

Well candid, you are well acquainted with this topic, right? The evidence for design is before your very eyes. Ask any farmer, fisherman, any environmentalist, any scientist. If there wasn’t universal order in the universe and between all its systems, science itself wouldn’t be possible, matematics wouldn’t be possible, farming and fisning wouldn’t be possible, life wouldn’t be possible.

What you want ask is how do we know this universal order is " designed " not that there isn’t universal order, right?

Well, I know where you stand on this issue. You would say that all this order has no cause, that the universe itself has no cause, right ?

My answer would be that the " evidence " is clear but not so clear that no one could object because the " evidence " depends on how highly one values the ability of human reason to reach valid conclusions from the observation of reality. No one that I know can provide " scientific " evidence that cannot be denied. On the other hand on one can provide any evidence that there is no design and/ or that the universe has no cause and no final end. To me it seems much more the reasonable position is that which follows below.

I would say universal order implies design, that design means a universal plan, and a universal plan implies a goal toward which all systems tend. And such a plan and end imply a single source of this plan and end. And this can only be an Intelligent Being Who is Absolutely Other than and Outside of the universe itself.

This Intelligent Being is either caused Itself or uncaused. But we cannot proceed to infinity in causes which are themselves are caused for then there would be no First Cause and consequently no immediate Cause or no Immediately Intelligent being who caused, planned and directs the ordered systems of the universe to their appointed ends. So even now chaos would reign or, more fundamentally, no universe would exist. But this cannot be because the universe does exist and evidences a definite order throughout, and thus it acts for a definite end.

Therefore there exists an Uncaused Intelligent Being Who is radically other than the universe and Who exists Outside the universe itself, Who created the universe and is even now directing it toward a desired end. And I say this Being is the God of Christianity.

:clapping:A succinct and highly successful explanation - in stark contrast to the question which is totally negative, nugatory and nihilistic, which is predictable from a devil’s advocate!

 

[Candide_West]

Well candid, you are well acquainted with this topic, right? The evidence for design is before your very eyes. Ask any farmer, fisherman, any environmentalist, any scientist. If there wasn’t universal order in the universe and between all its systems, science itself wouldn’t be possible, matematics wouldn’t be possible, farming and fisning wouldn’t be possible, life wouldn’t be possible.

What you want ask is how do we know this universal order is " designed " not that there isn’t universal order, right?

Pretty much. That’s what i was getting at with the "how can you tell the difference between “designed” and “non-designed and non-random”. I agree that there are complex systems, but I know of no reason to believe that these are designed.

Well, I know where you stand on this issue. You would say that all this order has no cause, that the universe itself has no cause, right ?

Nope, I don’t know what caused the universe.

My answer would be that the " evidence " is clear but not so clear that no one could object because the " evidence " depends on how highly one values the ability of human reason to reach valid conclusions from the observation of reality.

Not really, humans have the ability to reason and reach valid conclusions based on observations of reality. If we ever discover definitively that the universe was not designed, then we will not suddenly lose this ability.

No one that I know can provide " scientific " evidence that cannot be denied.

I agree, I don’t know of any evidence of design either. Hence my question on this thread. Should I consider this to be your answer? If so then I’d like to thank you for providing such a direct response. It’s quite unusual to receive one in conversations on this topic.

Just to be clear, I don’t know of any other form of evidence other than scientific evidence. In it’s broadest sense science includes any observation of events and drawing conclusions from them. Is there some other form of evidence beyond this?

On the other hand on one can provide any evidence that there is no design and/ or that the universe has no cause and no final end.

True, because it’s impossible to gather evidence of an absence without a reliable means of detection. For example it’s not possible to gather evidence that there is no invisible flying unicorn in the room you are in at the moment. We can only state that there is no evidence for the presence of such an entity and apply Occams Razor to ignore the possibility.

To me it seems much more the reasonable position is that which follows below.

I would say universal order implies design, that design means a universal plan, and a universal plan implies a goal toward which all systems tend. And such a plan and end imply a single source of this plan and end. And this can only be an Intelligent Being Who is Absolutely Other than and Outside of the universe itself.

But why would you say that order implies design? Waves washing on a beach order the sand and pebbles on the beach. However the waves are not designing the beach.

This Intelligent Being is either caused Itself or uncaused. But we cannot proceed to infinity in causes which are themselves are caused for then there would be no First Cause and consequently no immediate Cause or no Immediately Intelligent being who caused, planned and directs the ordered systems of the universe to their appointed ends. So even now chaos would reign or, more fundamentally, no universe would exist. But this cannot be because the universe does exist and evidences a definite order throughout, and thus it acts for a definite end.

Therefore there exists an Uncaused Intelligent Being Who is radically other than the universe and Who exists Outside the universe itself, Who created the universe and is even now directing it toward a desired end. And I say this Being is the God of Christianity.

I know that those are your beliefs. I do not share them.

 

[tonyrey]

From what I’ve read of it, this thread seems to have a repeating pattern.

1. 
   *]The OP trots out a design argument (usually a varient of the argument from complexity).
   *]The atheist regulars on CAF respond to it with the usual questions regarding why complexity should infer design.
   *]The OP usually responds by stating that a non-designed universe undermines the process human reasoning (whatever that means).
   *]A long name calling session ensues.
   *]Everyone forgets whats been previously said and someone asks a question like you just asked.
   *]The thread repeats from step one.

1. 
   A facile set of unsubstantiated assertions which lacks significance!

 

[tonyrey]

Guilty as charged ! Yes, we do get carried away at times. But actually we all love each other. And even though the pattern is generally repeated, there are often new nuances which enlighten. Why don’t you contribute, it would offer some variety.

Negativity is the name of the game!

 

[wanstronian]

From what I’ve read of it, this thread seems to have a repeating pattern.

1. 
   *]The OP trots out a design argument (usually a varient of the argument from complexity).
   *]The atheist regulars on CAF respond to it with the usual questions regarding why complexity should infer design.
   *]The OP usually responds by stating that a non-designed universe undermines the process human reasoning (whatever that means).
   *]A long name calling session ensues.
   *]Everyone forgets whats been previously said and someone asks a question like you just asked.
   *]The thread repeats from step one.

1. 
   I think that’s pretty much spot on. This is the longest thread ever seen on CAF, it keeps getting reborn, usually by the same old people who seem to think that mindless repetition will somehow exempt them from having to actually prove something.
   
   I miss the good old days when you could actually have a debate about stuff. Now it’s just “purposeless particles this” and “most adequate explanation that,” with nary a sign of anything substantive to back up the claims.
   
   So sad.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that’s pretty much spot on. This is the longest thread ever seen on CAF, it keeps getting reborn, usually by the same old people who seem to think that mindless repetition will somehow exempt them from having to actually prove something.

I miss the good old days when you could actually have a debate about stuff. Now it’s just “purposeless particles this” and “most adequate explanation that,” with nary a sign of anything substantive to back up the claims.

So sad.

It’s pathetic to have the audacity to return to this forum two months after having made false assertions you undertook to substantiate - and then promptly disappeared from the scene until now in the vain hope they would be forgotten…

Yet another example of a totally negative, nugatory and nihilistic post from a body which rejects the reality of the mind and then blithely proceeds to use the term “mindless” about others!

 

[Candide_West]

Is there any chance we could actually stick to the topic???

If there is any evidence for design (other than that performed by humans) then how about we talk about said evidence. If there isn’t then that’s fine. Either way, the slightly veiled snide comments do nothing to further discussion, they are just a sure fire way to alienate your interlocutors.