Design with no designer?

[Schn]

Your supercilious remark reveals your lack of understanding of the issue at stake. What do you know about possible universes?
BTW Which do **you **rely on in your daily life - coincidence or intelligence?

I rely on coincidence. Air molecules are moving around randomly, so it’s just a coincidence that they fill my lungs regularly. Water molecules also move around randomly, it’s just a coincidence it doesn’t splash everywhere. Photons are emitted from the sun randomly. It’s just coincidence that it’s sunny outside.

Yet you think the correct explanation is already available if we are to go by your statements…

In other words you wish to be invulnerable!

Nope. I don’t have to offer an alternative explanation to show that yours is wrong.

Nothing shall come of nothing… You have to establish that it is a null hypothesis…
And of course to do that you need to reveal your assumptions…

The null hypothesis for the universe is uncertainty.

 

[buffalo]

Arbitrary dichotomy - why do you get to decide what looks designed? You’ve only seen the designs of people; you have no idea what a gods design would look like if you saw one. You’re judging aginst information you don’t have…

We see God’s design all around us. Look around, see anything created by man?

In a way though I agree - it is difficult to differentiate God’s design in our own frame. The language of DNA seems to be different though.

 

[coolduude]

Well we are created in God’s image with an intellect and will so… maybe we can see and know what God’s design is like.

 

[tonyrey]

I rely on coincidence. Air molecules are moving around randomly, so it’s just a coincidence that they fill my lungs regularly. Water molecules also move around randomly, it’s just a coincidence it doesn’t splash everywhere. Photons are emitted from the sun randomly. It’s just coincidence that it’s sunny outside.

According to you everything is either ultimately due to coincidence or inexplicable, including your power to explain - which undermines the credibility of your hypothesis!

Nope. I don’t have to offer an alternative explanation to show that yours is wrong.

Just as I thought…

 

[Zatzat]

Already covered - designs need a designer. Conclusion: all design comes from a mind. We see design all around us. It came from a mind. The mind of God.

You choose to see design.

I ask of you, which God created all of this?

How can you be sure it was " insert name of preferred God" who created it and it wasn’t another worshiped Deity?

Which of course, begs the question, who created your God?

 

[buffalo]

You choose to see design.

I ask of you, which God created all of this?

How can you be sure it was " insert name of preferred God" who created it and it wasn’t another worshiped Deity?

Which of course, begs the question, who created your God?

Is your claim that design does not exist?

 

[Zatzat]

Is your claim that design does not exist?

Design exists in nature, but can we all agree the assertion that there must be a supernatural designer, is a subjective opinion at best?

I asked you a few questions, I’d be interested to hear your answers.

 

[tonyrey]

Design exists in nature, but can we all agree the assertion that there must be a supernatural designer, is a subjective opinion at best?

All opinions are subjective! It is a subjective opinion that there is no supernatural designer, no supernatural reality and that everything is “natural” - whatever that means…

 

[buffalo]

Design exists in nature, but can we all agree the assertion that there must be a supernatural designer, is a subjective opinion at best?

I asked you a few questions, I’d be interested to hear your answers.

Give me a few examples of design in nature.

 

[Zatzat]

All opinions are subjective! It is a subjective opinion that there is no supernatural designer, no supernatural reality and that everything is “natural” - whatever that means…

Is it not you ( the religious) who are making the positive claim that the world was designed by a specific supernatural creator?

Yes?

The onus to prove the premise true, does rest on the one making the positive claim.

Yes?

The reality is, there is no more or less evidence that the Christian God is responsible for creation, than there is that the Hindu or Sikh Gods are responsible…let alone any God at all.

 

[Zatzat]

Give me a few examples of design in nature.

Sure, once you oblige, from my original post;

'I ask of you, which God created all of this?

How can you be sure it was " insert name of preferred God" who created it and it wasn’t another worshiped Deity?

Which of course, begs the question, who created your God? ’

 

[buffalo]

You choose to see design.

I ask of you, which God created all of this?

How can you be sure it was " insert name of preferred God" who created it and it wasn’t another worshiped Deity?

Which of course, begs the question, who created your God?

The one and only God. As the CCC teaches:

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’) The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

How do we know?- He Revealed Himself to us. It is historical and recorded. You reject this history.

 

[buffalo]

Is it not you ( the religious) who are making the positive claim that the world was designed by a specific supernatural creator?

Yes?

The onus to prove the premise true, does rest on the one making the positive claim.

Yes?

The reality is, there is no more or less evidence that the Christian God is responsible for creation, than there is that the Hindu or Sikh Gods are responsible…let alone any God at all.

AlbertBall - did you change you name or is this a reinforcement?

 

[twinc]

I don’t think so. Either there is a watchmaker or there isn’t. Or, you can demonstrate that living things can spontaneously arise from non-living things

Peace,
Ed/QUOTE

yes it was a long time ago but I remember it well but do not know the source "seek not in books or strange events for signs that only fools believe,when this the greatest miracle is closer than the air you breathe - so close yet unrecognised,so close how can we fail to see that creatures made of dust can suffer pain and feel and see - twinc

 

[Zatzat]

The one and only God. As the CCC teaches:

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’) The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

How do we know?- He Revealed Himself to us. It is historical and recorded. You reject this history.

…all of which is steeped in supernatural belief. Supernatural belief that is no less and no more true than the supernatural beliefs of every other person of all faiths.

Your one and only God, is not the one and only God for a Hindu.

The Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and scientologists do not believe that God revealed himself in Jesus.

Lastly, you quoted the catechism…the opinions of men.

Ultimately, you offer no evidence.

You hold these convictions on faith.

Yes?

Evidence of design in nature;

Evolutionary design surrounds us.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm

“…structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.”

 

[coolduude]

I’m sorry, but I must interject.

The OT (Old Testament) is indeed history. You seem to read a lot, so read on the OT Zazat.

 

[buffalo]

…all of which is steeped in supernatural belief. Supernatural belief that is no less and no more true than the supernatural beliefs of every other person of all faiths.

Your one and only God, is not the one and only God for a Hindu.

The Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and scientologists do not believe that God revealed himself in Jesus.

Lastly, you quoted the catechism…the opinions of men.

Ultimately, you offer no evidence.

You hold these convictions on faith.

Yes?

Evidence of design in nature;

Evolutionary design surrounds us.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm

“…structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.”

No - there is only one truth. The CC contains the fullness of truth. Other religions do have some truths, for man can find these truths.

There is only one God. The sad fact is all men have not found Him or reject Him.

The CCC is based on Scripture and Tradition. (read the footnotes)

Evolutionary design? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Evolution does not design. Unless of course you are claiming theistic evolution. Is this your position?

 

[Zatzat]

No - there is only one truth. The CC contains the fullness of truth. Other religions do have some truths, for man can find these truths.

I don’t agree that the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church. You can just as much prove that fullness of truth is found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism…( add whatever ism you like)

There is only one God.

There is one God, there are several Gods, nature is God, man is God, God is in everything, God is everything…

All equally unprovable, believed only on faith.

The CCC is based on Scripture and Tradition. (read the footnotes)

Other religions have beliefs that are based upon the writings found within Holy books and the traditions found within their religions. How does that make their claims true?

Evolutionary design? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Not at all, natures design can be found in the evolutionary process.

Unless of course you are claiming theistic evolution. Is this your position?

No I’m not.

 

[Think_About_It]

The language of DNA seems to be different though.

Only in that it’s novel. It doesn’t matter how different it seems. If you think DNA is so fascinating, you must be thrilled about how it makes people sick or retarded at birth sometimes. If DNA is a design, it’s a shabby one.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t agree that the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church. You can just as much prove that fullness of truth is found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism…( add whatever ism you like)

There is one God, there are several Gods, nature is God, man is God, God is in everything, God is everything…

All equally unprovable, believed only on faith.

Other religions have beliefs that are based upon the writings found within Holy books and the traditions found within their religions. How does that make their claims true?

Not at all, natures design can be found in the evolutionary process.

No I’m not.

First off - all the religions cannot be true. They have contradictory points. So how does one parse through these points? Is this where you want to play today?