Design with no designer?

[R_Daneel]

For the record. What is known as the Bible is actually a serious of books written in a variety of forms over many years.

I am sure you wanted to say “series” and not “serious”. Also for the record: the actual books included in the Bible (which one? there are several conflicting views on this) have been selected by a committee of bishops, who used “voting” to decide which books are to be included in the “Word of God”, and which ones are declared “mene, tekel, ufarsin”. Whatever method they used to make their selection is unknown, but there were some “scriptures” which lost by one vote. Obviously the Holy Spirit was not doing a good job to “inspire” the participants. By the way, at an another occasion there was also a vote taken on the subject: “are women human beings?”. Guess what, women were declared to be human also by one vote! Imagine, if only one of the bishops had voted differently, some Catholics might lead their wives on a leash - even today!

After looking at the index and glancing at the introductions to the various books, no reasonable person would ever assume that everything thing is written in a literal fashion.

Tell that to the evangelical type of Protestants, and try to convince them about it. I agree, of course, that they are not reasonable people.

Bible means – basic instructions before leaving earth.

However, this is cute!

---

Now, to the actual topic of this thread: “design without a designer is an oxymoron”. Nature definitely exhibits order, but order does not need an “orderer”. To say that nature exhibits “design” presupposes that there is something “undesigned” (natural) and we can compare the “natural” state of affairs to the one we can observe (which is called “designed” by some people). However, if everything is designed, there is noting to compare to, and thus the distinction between “natural” and “designed” is meaningless.

 

[buffalo]

I am sure you wanted to say “series” and not “serious”. Also for the record: the actual books included in the Bible (which one? there are several conflicting views on this) have been selected by a committee of bishops, who used “voting” to decide which books are to be included in the “Word of God”, and which ones are declared “mene, tekel, ufarsin”. Whatever method they used to make their selection is unknown, but there were some “scriptures” which lost by one vote. Obviously the Holy Spirit was not doing a good job to “inspire” the participants. By the way, at an another occasion there was also a vote taken on the subject: “are women human beings?”. Guess what, women were declared to be human also by one vote! Imagine, if only one of the bishops had voted differently, some Catholics might lead their wives on a leash - even today!

Tell that to the evangelical type of Protestants, and try to convince them about it. I agree, of course, that they are not reasonable people.

However, this is cute!

---

Now, to the actual topic of this thread: “design without a designer is an oxymoron”. Nature definitely exhibits order, but order does not need an “orderer”. To say that nature exhibits “design” presupposes that there is something “undesigned” (natural) and we can compare the “natural” state of affairs to the one we can observe (which is called “designed” by some people). However, if everything is designed, there is noting to compare to, and thus the distinction between “natural” and “designed” is meaningless.

Straight from the DaVinci Code nonsense. Do your own research man. You will find that the Canon was set well before that.

 

[buffalo]

---

Now, to the actual topic of this thread: “design without a designer is an oxymoron”. Nature definitely exhibits order, but order does not need an “orderer”. To say that nature exhibits “design” presupposes that there is something “undesigned” (natural) and we can compare the “natural” state of affairs to the one we can observe (which is called “designed” by some people). However, if everything is designed, there is noting to compare to, and thus the distinction between “natural” and “designed” is meaningless.

Then you would vote to shut down SETI?

 

[Thing]

---

Now, to the actual topic of this thread: “design without a designer is an oxymoron”. Nature definitely exhibits order, but order does not need an “orderer”. To say that nature exhibits “design” presupposes that there is something “undesigned” (natural) and we can compare the “natural” state of affairs to the one we can observe (which is called “designed” by some people). However, if everything is designed, there is noting to compare to, and thus the distinction between “natural” and “designed” is meaningless.

Your natural state is to be on holiday [designed]. So you are never on holiday [designed], because you are always on holiday [designed]…
Admitting that everything is designed does not help your argument.

 

[grannymh]

I am sure you wanted to say “series” and not “serious”. Also for the record: the actual books included in the Bible (which one? there are several conflicting views on this) have been selected by a committee of bishops, who used “voting” to decide which books are to be included in the “Word of God”, and which ones are declared “mene, tekel, ufarsin”. Whatever method they used to make their selection is unknown, but there were some “scriptures” which lost by one vote. Obviously the Holy Spirit was not doing a good job to “inspire” the participants. By the way, at an another occasion there was also a vote taken on the subject: “are women human beings?”. Guess what, women were declared to be human also by one vote! Imagine, if only one of the bishops had voted differently, some Catholics might lead their wives on a leash - even today!

Serious must have been a Freudian slip.

Thanks, Buffalo for the reminder-- post 160. Noticed that the method to make their selection is unknown but their voting record is definite as if the front page headlines had been preserved. The bit about women will keep me laughing for a week at least.

However, this is cute!

Actually – basic instructions before leaving earth is serious!​

Now, to the actual topic of this thread: “design without a designer is an oxymoron”. Nature definitely exhibits order, but order does not need an “orderer”. To say that nature exhibits “design” presupposes that there is something “undesigned” (natural) and we can compare the “natural” state of affairs to the one we can observe (which is called “designed” by some people). However, if everything is designed, there is noting to compare to, and thus the distinction between “natural” and “designed” is meaningless.

Please don’t tell me that you are one of those people who insist on a negative for every positive,
:sad_yes:

Be happy. It is far more enjoyable to see the world as naturally designed then to waste precious moments in the sunshine trying to draw the undesigned on black paper.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Black_Angel_1]

Here is my honest opinion about this. It comes up to the whole debate of Science or Religion, Evolution or Genesis.

What I like to ask Atheists is "How can intelligence come from nothing? How can the entire universe work in such a perfect cycle without a higher intelligence creating it? How can nothing become something so perfect in unity? The scientific view point on creation is more mythical and less believable then a higher power.

Even if Science proves the Big Bang to be true, how can an explosion of that magnitude come from nothing?

Atheists tend to think of God, as if he were a man, ignoring the term God, and believing him to be only capable of human feats. They ignore that he is far beyond our understanding…

Personally. There has to be a God, because nothing in Science makes actual sense without an intelligence behind the causing of these effects.

And in the whole Christian point of view. There are so many sub religions that have different details, that I tend to look deeper, into more ancient times.

In this case I look to Islam for more information because I love to know more about this kind of thing.

Islam is very interesting and very similar to Christianity. And the Quran (basically their version of the bible) is simply the Archangel Gabriel’s words to the Prophet Mohammad. When I look at Islam, I see deep similarities. For example: Muslims believe Jesus to be the messiah and believe he will return in the same way Christians do. The only difference is that they believe him to be a Man, not the Son of God, but they believe him to be the chosen prophet, the one who actually brings the word of God.

Not sure about the Jewish point of view. But since they believe in the same God, I am sure there are deep similarities there…

Point is: Intelligence cannot come from nothing. Which is what Science suggests, that all these intelligent lifeforms simply came to be through Molecules and atoms. Which aren’t intelligent lifeforms.

There has to be a Designer to make a Design, the Universe is a design, therefore there has to be a designer IE: God.

 

[wanstronian]

We weren’t born in a vacuum. We have evidence, we have history, we have experiences, we have Revelation. They all point the same way.

Er… no, they don’t.

 

[wanstronian]

DNA is pointing us to a designer.

There is nothing about DNA that points to a designer, any more than the scattering of leaves under a tree points to someone having carefully placed each leaf in position.

It’s a ridiculous assertion, totally unsubstantiable.

 

[wanstronian]

Here is my honest opinion about this. It comes up to the whole debate of Science or Religion, Evolution or Genesis.

What I like to ask Atheists is "How can intelligence come from nothing? How can the entire universe work in such a perfect cycle without a higher intelligence creating it? How can nothing become something so perfect in unity? The scientific view point on creation is more mythical and less believable then a higher power.

Even if Science proves the Big Bang to be true, how can an explosion of that magnitude come from nothing?

Atheists tend to think of God, as if he were a man, ignoring the term God, and believing him to be only capable of human feats. They ignore that he is far beyond our understanding…

Personally. There has to be a God, because nothing in Science makes actual sense without an intelligence behind the causing of these effects.

And in the whole Christian point of view. There are so many sub religions that have different details, that I tend to look deeper, into more ancient times.

In this case I look to Islam for more information because I love to know more about this kind of thing.

Islam is very interesting and very similar to Christianity. And the Quran (basically their version of the bible) is simply the Archangel Gabriel’s words to the Prophet Mohammad. When I look at Islam, I see deep similarities. For example: Muslims believe Jesus to be the messiah and believe he will return in the same way Christians do. The only difference is that they believe him to be a Man, not the Son of God, but they believe him to be the chosen prophet, the one who actually brings the word of God.

Not sure about the Jewish point of view. But since they believe in the same God, I am sure there are deep similarities there…

Point is: Intelligence cannot come from nothing. Which is what Science suggests, that all these intelligent lifeforms simply came to be through Molecules and atoms. Which aren’t intelligent lifeforms.

There has to be a Designer to make a Design, the Universe is a design, therefore there has to be a designer IE: God.

This is commonly known as the “Argument from ignorance” - basically, it boils down to, “I can’t personally see how this could happen, therefore God must have done it.”

It’s intellectually deficient, and implicitly arrogant.

 

[buffalo]

There is nothing about DNA that points to a designer, any more than the scattering of leaves under a tree points to someone having carefully placed each leaf in position.

It’s a ridiculous assertion, totally unsubstantiable.

You will have to get used to this.

The DNA code comes from a mind.

 

[Thing]

This is commonly known as the “Argument from ignorance” - basically, it boils down to, “I can’t personally see how this could happen, therefore God must have done it.”

It’s intellectually deficient, and implicitly arrogant.

Nobody knows how or why everything has happened. Just like evolutionists cannot leave random chance alone, as an explanation, they must add higher functions like natural selection to random chance. Likewise man from earliest times, I presume, has recognised, or acknowledged the necessity of, other ‘higher functions’ at work in the world he observed. ‘God’ is simply the name for the highest possible function under which all else in creation operates, including natural selection and random chance.

 

[grannymh]

There is nothing about DNA that points to a designer, any more than the scattering of leaves under a tree points to someone having carefully placed each leaf in position.

It’s a ridiculous assertion, totally unsubstantiable.

DNA has a language which gives instructions. DNA promotes life. This is far different than a scattering of leaves which are in the process of decomposing.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

This is commonly known as the “Argument from ignorance” - basically, it boils down to, “I can’t personally see how this could happen, therefore God must have done it.”

It’s intellectually deficient, and implicitly arrogant.

Not exactly. The spiritual exists beyond the sensory realm.

 

[Image_of_God]

We need only to think of the Earth:

Which happens to be a perfect distance from the sun
Which seems to have the perfect axial tilt
Which seems to be the right size, in order to possess
An atmosphere of the right size, and
In this atmosphere, ozone formed in just the right amount
The gases are just the right amount to support life
Which seems to have a natural satellite (which is necessary to life)
And its core produces a magnetic field that protects us from solar flares
Its atmosphere burns millions of particles that would otherwise harm us
And on it, trees and plants formed to be oxygen producers

And we’re supposed to believe that this was all unintended? I have a very hard time believing that and I believe that many other people should, too. The Earth is too right, too beautiful, too unique to be anything other than a gift. I think it was intentionally made that way. Science just tells us how.

 

[Image_of_God]

This is commonly known as the “Argument from ignorance” - basically, it boils down to, “I can’t personally see how this could happen, therefore God must have done it.”

It’s intellectually deficient, and implicitly arrogant.

Not at all. When we see something with such order and detail, it is from experience that we assume that some higher intelligence made it. For example, if you go into a room where all the clothes are neatly folded—everything is neatly and tidily done, you do not go there and say it happened by coincidence, but rather that someone made things this way. Likewise, if you see a computer, you assume that someone made it and that it didn’t just come out of nowhere.

Black_Angel is only using reason and logic. If we are an orderly system of things (which science shows that we are), it is only logical to assume that we are made from something higher than ourselves.

 

[AntiTheist]

And we’re supposed to believe that this was all unintended?

To use an example first suggested by Douglas Adams, imagine a sentient puddle that wakes up one day and finds himself in a hole that he determines is perfectly shaped to hold him. The puddle concludes that the hole fits him so well that the hole must have been specially designed just for him.

What Adams’ story illustrates is that just because something is a “perfect fit,” it doesn’t mean that it was necessarily designed – it can easily be the other way around: that is to say, our environment wasn’t perfectly designed for us, but rather, the evolution of our species made us perfectly fit to live in this environment.

EDIT: And, of course, it’s not a question of “belief.” If you want to claim that there was an intelligent force behind the universe, then the burden is on you to demonstrate this claim. Until then, you can’t expect people to accept it.

Not at all. When we see something with such order and detail, it is from experience that we assume that some higher intelligence made it.

The problem here, obviously, is that we have plenty of examples of order coming from blind, unintelligent forces. A snowflake is perhaps the best example – an orderly, intricate, unique design and structure that is produced by completely natural, blind, unintelligent forces.

Similarly, the motion of the planets – which most people would describe as orderly – is caused by the blind, unintelligent force of gravity.

Order, in and of itself, doesn’t point to intelligence.

 

[buffalo]

To use an example first suggested by Douglas Adams, imagine a sentient puddle that wakes up one day and finds himself in a hole that he determines is perfectly shaped to hold him. The puddle concludes that the hole fits him so well that the hole must have been specially designed just for him.

What Adams’ story illustrates is that just because something is a “perfect fit,” it doesn’t mean that it was necessarily designed – it can easily be the other way around: that is to say, our environment wasn’t perfectly designed for us, but rather, the evolution of our species made us perfectly fit to live in this environment.

EDIT: And, of course, it’s not a question of “belief.” If you want to claim that there was an intelligent force behind the universe, then the burden is on you to demonstrate this claim. Until then, you can’t expect people to accept it.

The problem here, obviously, is that we have plenty of examples of order coming from blind, unintelligent forces. A snowflake is perhaps the best example – an orderly, intricate, unique design and structure that is produced by completely natural, blind, unintelligent forces.

Similarly, the motion of the planets – which most people would describe as orderly – is caused by the blind, unintelligent force of gravity.

Order, in and of itself, doesn’t point to intelligence.

The universe is intelligible. Therefore we can study it.

We have studied and found the DNA code. It is a language with symbols. It contains a message with a sender and receiver. It comes from a mind.

 

[AntiTheist]

We have studied and found the DNA code. It is a language with symbols. It contains a message with a sender and receiver. It comes from a mind.

No. All the evidence we have suggests that DNA arose from the process of natural selection.

You’re just asserting things, here. That’s not a sensible way to conclude things about the world – a far better approach is to actually look at evidence.

 

[coolduude]

No. All the evidence we have suggests that DNA arose from the process of natural selection.

You’re just asserting things, here. That’s not a sensible way to conclude things about the world – a far better approach is to actually look at evidence.

Then please cite said evidence.

 

[buffalo]

No. All the evidence we have suggests that DNA arose from the process of natural selection.

You’re just asserting things, here. That’s not a sensible way to conclude things about the world – a far better approach is to actually look at evidence.

All right - step 1

Does design exist?