Design with no designer?

[buffalo]

I believe that current " scientific talk" is misusing the principles of the Induction Method.
There used to be two scientific methods of obtaining knowledge. Remember?
There was the Deduction Method and the Induction Method.

Now there is the Assumptions Method and the Presumptions Method.

Bingo! grannymh you win the grand prize. :bowdown:

You are not going to have to try to teach them the various reasoning methods are you?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Buffalo:
So you keep repeating, and yet here is an example of a pattern with results that does not come from a mind. The evidence of DNA proves you incorrect.

If you want to claim it comes from a mind – and presumably you are thinking of a discarnate mind with the magical powers to create a universe – then provide evidence of 1) a discarnate intelligence and 2) that this discarnate intelligence “wrote” the “code” of DNA.

You’re not going to be able to do that because, as I explained to someone else a moment ago, these claims fly in the face of all the observed evidence, which indicates that complex things (like intelligence) come from simpler things.

Science can account for clockwork complexity in nature. However, Physical complexity is not the same as the complexity of meaningful information.
In terms of our own creative inventions, when we make purposeful language, the language makes sense only because we have invented and applied meaning to it. A code on a peace of paper has no objective meaning outside of somebodies subjective understanding of it. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet cannot be understood or applied without the meaning we give it or agree that it has. Objectively speaking, the “words” by themselves have no meaning. Thus, in order for Dna to function, there has to be a precedent and objectively meaningful language that is eternally true; otherwise physical complexity amounts to nothing in terms of functionality. Dna doesn’t and cannot account for the meaning by which the construction takes place; since it requires objective meaning before anything can occur. In order to make an ear or an eye or emotions that function meaningfully in relation to a mind, these things have to have meaning in relation to each other before they can exist objectively as an expressive whole.

One could say, however unlikely, that it was by chance that the right components came together to form a functioning brain. But they would be wrong to say that it was by chance that there is such a thing as a brain in respect of what is possible. It can be said that the brain has evolved from precedent parts according to natural events, however the human brain as a whole, in terms of its functionality as a brain, is an eternal truth. That is to say, that it was always true that given a specific arrangement of atoms, the meaningful functionality of the brain and the experience of the mind would come in to existence. This is a timeless truth since it is evident that it has happened. What makes these things true? We certainly cannot look to physics for an explanation since it is the meaningful nature of physical reality that we want to explain. Thus evolution has very little or next to nothing to say in terms of what nature produces, qualitatively speaking. It is evident that there are deterministic rules that governs natural events in terms of what can and cannot exist or what will be the out come of chemical interactions. What causes those rules; if not something transcendent and intelligent?

What nature produces is meaningful in terms of purpose despite the truth of evolution, since it is evident that some parts produce qualitative wholes that cannot be reduced to the meaning or the movement of its parts; and the whole, moves towards meaningful ends that fulfills the whole. To hear, See and Think, is only meaningful in respect of a mind and; they all presuppose the existence of each other in so far as functionality is concerned. The evident fact is that there is an act of life that seeks preservation and functional fulfillment, and it seeks this in manner that presupposes that there is something to protect and fulfill; and this in itself strongly implies that life has a purpose and a meaning above the mere interaction of individual atoms. The intrinsic meaning that we find in life cannot be explained by physics; because physics is merely the ground through which these meaningful things are given expression; but it is not the meaning itself.

 

[coolduude]

So, no reply.

Is the argument conceded?

 

[coolduude]

Is this thread dead?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is this thread dead?

Unfortunately i seem to have killed it with my last post.

 

[coolduude]

Unfortunately i seem to have killed it with my last post.

Shucks!

 

[AntiTheist]

I actually completely forgot about this thread. I’ll make a few comments, but I don’t think it will do any good.

If the bolded were true, you would at least admit honestly that our theory of an intelligent being creating the universe might be true.

Of course it might be true. It also might be true that dancing pixies made the universe last Wednesday. They’re both possibilities, but I don’t accept either possibility.

Your want me to believe that you don’t that you don’t reject the possibility of an intelligent being creating the universe, yet your choice of words don’t show that you take the idea too seriously.

Newsflash: it’s possible to not reject a possibility and also not take it seriously at the same exact time. Here’s an example: I do not reject the possibility that aliens exist and are visiting the earth in UFOs; however, despite that possibility, I do not take the claim seriously because no evidence has been provided for it.

The current idea of the universe as accepted in the scientific mainstream is that the universe came as a result of the Big Bang. Depending on how you look at it, that could very well mean the universe came from absolutely nothing.

The universe began to assume its current shape at the Big Bang. No one knows what happened before that.

You cannot say that since there is no evidence for God, that God does not exist.

But I can say that the lack of evidence means that there’s no good reason to accept the claim, which is exactly what I’m saying.

To be honest, we really have no idea what happened before homo sapiens came to be. We can only take what “evidence” we have and make assumptions as to what probably happened.

And that’s what we do. What do you suggest we do? Just make up whatever stories make us feel good?

Short of being there, or some insight into the past, there really is no way to ascertain these facts.

Other than, as you suggest, acquiring evidence and drawing conclusions. The evidence we’ve acquired indicates that complex things come from simple things, not the other way around.

What you claim to be “evidence” is really an assumption (reasonable at that) based on what we possess. …] that’s only highly probable, not absolutely certain. It might later be discovered that someone who knew her very well was there instead.

Sure, we might later discover otherwise, but until we do, I’m going with what is “highly probable” and “reasonable…based on what we possess.” Is the implication here that you go with what is “highly improbable” and “unreasonable”?

Thing:

I would like you to tell me of the specific scientific tests undertaken which critically examined creation and scientifically tested it for evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe - and I would like to see those negative test results which you seem to claim exist in science.

You seem to have reading comprehension difficulties. I never said that “creation” has been “scientifically tested.” I said that the idea of a universe-creating intelligence existing all by itself is in direct contradiction to all the evidence – everything we have ever observed.

Intelligence is a complex characteristic that appears to come from simple things. If you’re claiming that an intelligence can exist all by itself, you are trying to contradict every last thing we have ever observed and concluded about the universe.

I’m not being “sarcastic” when I say that demonstrating the existence of this intelligence would earn you a nobel prize: it would be the single most monumental discovery in the history of humanity.

I may get back to this thread in the future.

 

[tonyrey]

As I say, it might be possible that there is a disembodied intelligence, but you’d have to present evidence that would overturn all of the findings of humanity up to this point.

What an absurd remark! To imply that “all of the findings of humanity up to this point” are **related **to the subject of a disembodied intelligence is the hallmark of a fanatical materialist who cannot even account for the fact that the most important realities of life are intangible. The truth is the exact reverse. There is not one finding of humanity which indicates that intelligence is a tangible phenomenon which **originates **in electrical impulses.

That would, indeed, be worthy of a nobel prize (a comment of mine that tonyrey bizarrely thinks is “nasty,” but is only a statement of fact: such a monumental discovery would be the biggest news ever in the history of humanity).

It would, indeed, be worthy of a Nobel prize and the biggest news ever in the history of humanity if you presented **clear evidence **that intelligence has emerged from unintelligent particles. The difference is that we do not state the obvious in a futile attempt to belittle the views of those who disagree with us. Such a statement reveals more about your character than the topic being discussed…

 

[Thing]

Thing:
Quote:
I would like you to tell me of the specific scientific tests undertaken which critically examined creation and scientifically tested it for evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe - and I would like to see those negative test results which you seem to claim exist in science.

You seem to have reading comprehension difficulties. I never said that “creation” has been “scientifically tested.” I said that the idea of a universe-creating intelligence existing all by itself is in direct contradiction to all the evidence – everything we have ever observed.

Intelligence is a complex characteristic that appears to come from simple things. If you’re claiming that an intelligence can exist all by itself, you are trying to contradict every last thing we have ever observed and concluded about the universe.

I’m not being “sarcastic” when I say that demonstrating the existence of this intelligence would earn you a nobel prize: it would be the single most monumental discovery in the history of humanity.

I may get back to this thread in the future.

Do not place your reading comprehension difficulties on me. I said ‘creation and scientifically tested’, but it was you who said that “scientific evidence contradicts a universe-creating intelligence”. What I am asking from you is the details of the scientific test you have used to provide you with this “scientific evidence contradicting a universe-creating intelligence”.

 

[Image_of_God]

I actually completely forgot about this thread. I’ll make a few comments, but I don’t think it will do any good.

Of course it might be true. It also might be true that dancing pixies made the universe last Wednesday. They’re both possibilities, but I don’t accept either possibility.

Exactly! It is something you don’t accept rather than something you have *proven *to be false. Just for the record, I don’t believe in dancing pixies either, but that is not because of any evidence I have against their existence.

Newsflash: it’s possible to not reject a possibility and also not take it seriously at the same exact time. Here’s an example: I do not reject the possibility that aliens exist and are visiting the earth in UFOs; however, despite that possibility, I do not take the claim seriously because no evidence has been provided for it.

That probably is the case, but when discoursing with someone on such topics, it is simply a matter of courtesy to show a degree of gravity towards their opinions on things, no matter how incredible you claim their beliefs to be. This is especially the case when your claims are equally as incredible.

The universe began to assume its current shape at the Big Bang. No one knows what happened before that.

…which is exactly why your claims against an Intelligent Being creating the Universe is somewhat futile. The fact that you know this should move you to take our opinion on how the universe came to be with equally possibility and validity, even if you don’t believe it as much as your own. In short, admit that you don’t have any proof for you belief beyond what you think might have happened.

But I can say that the lack of evidence means that there’s no good reason to accept the claim, which is exactly what I’m saying.

What lack of evidence? A theory is not evidence. That because something that is claimed to happened in the past does not happen today is not evidence. To impose a uniformity in nature which has never been empirically verified is not evidence either.

And that’s what we do. What do you suggest we do? Just make up whatever stories make us feel good?

I am sure you know that theories are essentially made up stories based on what we believe and based on what we can see today. That, nonetheless, doesn’t make them true.

Other than, as you suggest, acquiring evidence and drawing conclusions. The evidence we’ve acquired indicates that complex things come from simple things, not the other way around.

You are certainly of the notion that believing that a Creator created the world is absolutely opposed to the slow development of things. It most certainly is not.

That complex things come from simple things is a hypothesis based on what we observe currently. However, if the Big Bang is true, then there may likely be a time when even simple things had to be created.

Sure, we might later discover otherwise, but until we do, I’m going with what is “highly probable” and “reasonable…based on what we possess.” Is the implication here that you go with what is “highly improbable” and “unreasonable”?

When speaking of such an event in the distant past, with no eyewitnesses available, it is not wise to claim that the theory you believe in most is more probable than someone else theory. You have absolutely no evidence for the claim. However, it is not unwise to believe that one theory is more true than another. That said, it is simply a belief.

Unless you are arguing for the eternal existence of matter, then you must admit that there was a time when even simple things came to be.

 

[grannymh]

I actually completely forgot about this thread. I’ll make a few comments, but I don’t think it will do any good.

Of course it might be true. It also might be true that dancing pixies made the universe last Wednesday. They’re both possibilities, but I don’t accept either possibility.

Your post will do some good because now I get to ask about dancing pixies.

Since you talk about possibilities which include the likes of dancing pixies, would you kindly tell me what possible qualifications dancing pixies have for making the universe last Wednesday? This inquiring mind wants to know.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of protection from the moment of conception.