Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[ffg]

Interesting to see an acceptance of order and intelligence in house building for simple creatures and possibly not see the same for the build of oneself and the ground upon which one walks.

The complication within both seems necessary of thought for design and build, to me.

With the whole natural/ unnatural, the natural aspect seems more complicated than the output. I would hope most folks could see intelligent design, but it’s just not the case.

For the example, it’s natural to want to house ourselves, all creatures.

Where the offset used as an example, the creature would not use it’s own ability for the end, it would have to be trained by a different creature, assumingly with a ‘higher’ intelligence.

Kind of like faith.

 

[o_mlly]

So if I build a house, the house is entirely a naturally ocurring object? As is an iPad and a nuclear power plant?

If you come across a nest in the woods, do you think: ‘Hey, that’s an unusual way for a number of leaves to arbitrarily assemble themselves’. Or do you think that it has all the attributes of being designed and that it couldn’t have ocurred naturally. That is, without some conscious decisions regarding form, content and use.

I put your question to the squirrels in my backyard and, quite naturally, they had nothing to say.

We’ve agreed that a natural act is one that can be explained by natural laws. A being acts naturally when the act proceeds from a faculty or power that our observation shows has always been present in that category of being. An act that is beyond the known powers of a being are unnatural. Therefore, all supernatural acts are unnatural. If a being acts contrary to its natural faculties the the act is merely unnatural.

As I wrote above, animals, like plants, have the power to reproduce. To aid and facilitate reproduction, animals have instincts, that is, imprinted behaviors that facilitate or insure the success of the reproductive act. This is why Mrs. Squirrel will not let Mr. Squirrel have his way until the “house” is completed.

Man has the added power of reason. This faculty allows man to naturally design and build an IPad and a nuclear reactor. If you see a squirrel using an IPad then you have seen a supernatural act. Take a pic.

 

[vz71]

So if I build a house, the house is entirely a naturally ocurring object? As is an iPad and a nuclear power plant?

If you come across a nest in the woods, do you think: ‘Hey, that’s an unusual way for a number of leaves to arbitrarily assemble themselves’. Or do you think that it has all the attributes of being designed and that it couldn’t have ocurred naturally. That is, without some conscious decisions regarding form, content and use.

I am still trying to figure out why when faced with the question of existence the atheist keeps sidestepping into design.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

@o_mlly, @Bradski

From observing this conversation over the past several days it looks that there are different senses of the word “natural” being blended together. Modern usages all have to do with creating a dichotomy between something resulting from interaction or intervention of some other category of force, actor, or factor. Something natural under one sense of the word may not be natural under another.

There is the dichotomy between man being involved and not being involved (ex:natural selection), technology, tools, or medicine being involved or not (natural family planning), spirits, gods, or God being involved (natural v super natural), instinctive/innate (rats don’t naturally seek out the smell of cat urine, but the toxoplasmosis parasite will cause them to do so) among other usages. It’s not hard to come up with something that is natural under some of these usages but not others.

As long as a sense of natural isn’t nailed down you could talk about this for some time without coming to agreevent.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am still trying to figure out why when faced with the question of existence the atheist keeps sidestepping into design.

I think one would need to have a good method for determining whether or not something is defined to get far with that conversation. People tend to look for similarities between an item in question and other things they know to be designed to generally make this determination, but even that can yield less than perfect results.

 

[o_mlly]

@o_mlly, @Bradski

From observing this conversation over the past several days it looks that there are different senses of the word “natural” being blended together. Modern usages all have to do with creating a dichotomy between something resulting from interaction or intervention of some other category of force, actor, or factor. Something natural under one sense of the word may not be natural under another.

There is the dichotomy between man being involved and not being involved (ex:natural selection), technology, tools, or medicine being involved or not (natural family planning), spirits, gods, or God being involved (natural v super natural), instinctive/innate (rats don’t naturally seek out the smell of cat urine, but the toxoplasmosis parasite will cause them to do so) among other usages. It’s not hard to come up with something that is natural under some of these usages but not others.

As long as a sense of natural isn’t nailed down you could talk about this for some time without coming to agreevent.

I think we are past “agreevement.”

If one labels things unnatural as evidence of human involvement then one admits that humans are extra-natural, that is, able to operate outside natural laws. If humans are able to operate within the natural law (yes) then the extra-natural nature of man is supernatural, that is, above nature. If man transcends nature then there exists a transcendent reality to which he transcends.

An atheist cannot logically claim unnatural as God involvement.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think we are past “agreevement.”

I’m sure I’ve got lots of typos, messaging from a mobile device in a car.

If one labels things unnatural as evidence of human involvement then one admits that humans are extra-natural, that is, able to operate outside natural laws.

I think you’ve just used the word in different senses within the same sentence. There is no implication of being able to act outside of physics, chemistrty, so one when one declares a human was involved.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m sure I’ve got lots of typos, messaging from a mobile device in a car.

I think you’ve just used the word in different senses within the same sentence. There is no implication of being able to act outside of physics, chemistrty, so one when one declares a human was involved.

Wanna run that by me again (pullover first!)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Wanna run that by me again (pullover first!)

IIf one labels things unnatural as evidence of human involvement then one admits that humans are extra-natural, that is, able to operate outside natural laws. If

If one is using “natural” to indicate whether or not the course of something were the result of human intervention it is not a declaration that the human also acts outside of the limits of physics/chemistry/so on. One label for the opposite of this sense of natural is “artificial.” Though other words may be used to imply something to be the result of human action. Natural satellites are not in their orbits because of man. Artificial satellites are present because man put them there. Artificial satellites are put in orbit using knowledge of “natural laws.” The usage of “natural” here in “natural laws” is not communicating human involvement or lack of human involvement in the course of events. It is referring to the behaviours of items in the universe as understood under the descriptive laws of physics, chemistry, and other areas of knowledge/science. “The Cassini space craft is not a natural satellite of Saturn. It was placed there using the natural laws describe in physics and chemistry.” Do you understand the two different senses invoked here? I normally avoid using different senses of the same word together though since it can at times lead to confusion. But let’s look back at something you said earlier.

If one labels things unnatural as evidence of human involvement then one admits that humans are extra-natural, that is, able to operate outside natural laws.

“Unnatural” is a a synonym for “resulting from human intervention.” The evidence that so etching is unnatural may be something else. Like the example of the satellite above humans use their knowledge of natural laws to try to control or influence outcomes. No need to introduce the concept of “extra-natural” here. The person isn’t operating outside of natural law.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Correction:

“Unnatural” is a a synonym for “resulting from human intervention.” The evidence that so [something] is unnatural may be something else. Like the example of the satellite above humans use their knowledge of natural laws to try to control or influence outcomes. No need to introduce the concept of “extra-natural” here. The person isn’t operating outside of natural law.

 

[Nelka]

No.

 

[o_mlly]

If one is using “natural” to indicate whether or not the course of something were the result of human intervention it is not a declaration that the human also acts outside of the limits of physics/chemistry/so on. One label for the opposite of this sense of natural is “artificial.” Though other words may be used to imply something to be the result of human action. Natural satellites are not in their orbits because of man. Artificial satellites are present because man put them there. Artificial satellites are put in orbit using knowledge of “natural laws.” The usage of “natural” here in “natural laws” is not communicating human involvement or lack of human involvement in the course of events. It is referring to the behaviours of items in the universe as understood under the descriptive laws of physics, chemistry, and other areas of knowledge/science. “The Cassini space craft is not a natural satellite of Saturn. It was placed there using the natural laws describe in physics and chemistry.” Do you understand the two different senses invoked here? I normally avoid using different senses of the same word together though since it can at times lead to confusion. But let’s look back at something you said earlier.

“Unnatural” is a a synonym for “resulting from human intervention.” The evidence that so etching is unnatural may be something else. Like the example of the satellite above humans use their knowledge of natural laws to try to control or influence outcomes. No need to introduce the concept of “extra-natural” here. The person isn’t operating outside of natural law.

Note that both your citations of my posts begin with “if.”

My statements that you cite are based on accepting the (and, I believe, incorrect) premise that evidence of design indicates an unnatural act. If you follow all the posts, you would note that terms have been defined and those terms determine our context

I think terms have been quite clear throughout the discussion. Natural means as a result of natural laws (whether laid down by God or not) and unnatural in the context of the discussion means occurring as a result of design.

My subsequent posts attempt to show that accepting the above as true leads to logical outcomes, e.g., squirrel nest-building is unnatural, which are false.

If everything that is artificial is designed then accepting the same premise as true results in stating that everything that is artificial is unnatural which, as you wrote, is also false.

 

[Bradski]

“Unnatural” is a a synonym for “resulting from human intervention.” The evidence that so etching is unnatural may be something else. Like the example of the satellite above humans use their knowledge of natural laws to try to control or influence outcomes. No need to introduce the concept of “extra-natural” here. The person isn’t operating outside of natural law.

I’m not restricting this to human intervention. It can be anything where there is intentional design. Which is the whole purpose of this excercise.

I don’t want to simply state that something must have been designed ‘because it looks designed’. That gets us nowhere. So, excluding the supernatural, we are left with natural and unatural. That is, that which occurs naturaly (a pile of leaves, some random rocks, a twig) and that which doesn’t (a nest, a shelter, a tool).

If you wander through the woods and find a pile of leaves and some random rocks and a twig, then you wouldn’t think twice about them. If someone asked you if they suggested some intelligence at work, then you would say no. These things have occured naturally.

But if the leaves and rocks and the twig have been arranged in what we can describe as an unatural manner, that is a manner that could not have occured naturally, then it indicates some intelligence at work and is an obvious result of design.

Some people want to claim that everything has been designed. In that case, how do we tell? If a nest of leaves shows intelligent design, that is, something that would not occur naturally, then hiw do we tell that the individual leaves are also designed.

This point of view, that there is evidence of design all around us, denies the very sense of the term ‘natural’. There is no nature, which is simply a term encompassing everything that is natural.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So, excluding the supernatural, we are left with natural and unatural.

I suggest to use the word “a-natural” instead of “unatural”. It is too close to “unnatural”. The nest of birds is different from a random pile of twigs, but it was NOT consciously designed.

 

[Bradski]

I suggest to use the word “a-natural” instead of “unatural”. It is too close to “unnatural”. The nest of birds is different from a random pile of twigs, but it was NOT consciously designed.

Ye gods, don’t go bringing instinctive behaviour into this, Vera. I’m having enough of a problem as it is.

I’m claiming a nest is designed whether by conscious effort or instinctive behaviour.

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

Probably trying to figure out the reason for everything, and in so doing, learning a lot about science and all. That probably would not always mean the individual would suddenly have an epiphany and exclaim that God made the universe.

Hawkings never did yet. Where did it get him in life? He is considered a brilliant man but he can’t say he believes God created everything. He is still hanging there, waiting for an answer to his questions.

 

[o_mlly]

Indeed. But you have conceded that some things occur naturally.

So we have a situation where we cannot tell the difference between what is designed (that which could not occur naturally) and what does occur naturally.

When Paley said that some things were obviously designed, he used the example of a watch. And yes, it’s pretty obvious that something as inorganic as a watch did not occur naturally (and note that I specifically did not say ‘something as complicated as a watch’ because there is a universe full of things that are vastly more intricate and complex than a simple clockwork watch).

And Behe and his chums at the Design Institute spend a not inconsiderable amount of time searching for aspects of reality that carry the imprint of design. ‘Look,’ they say. ‘This cannot have happened naturally’. In obvious contrast to things that DO occur naturally. Otherwise, there is no contrast to point out. There is no anomaly.

The point I am making is that Behe and his ilk can only talk about design where it seems to them that something has come into existence for which they do not know the cause. It appears to them to be unnatural. It appears to them to have been designed. This constant refrain is no more than saying: ‘I can see no way possible that this could have come about by natural means, therefore…God’.

…

Was all this proof of design? I guess there must have been a Behe equivalent for each example, pulling out his soap box whenever he thought he could get a crowd and stating what surely must be obvious to everyone: ‘We have no idea how this could possibly be natural, so it must be God’.

But what is natural and what is not, cannot, it seems, be determined. And it appears that you want your cake and to eat it in any case. You want to back both horses in a two horse race: ‘Of course there are things that occur naturally (but just between you and me, it’s all designed anyway)’.

You should pick a position and then we might be able to discuss it.

It seems the word “natural” has some ambiguity which confuses posters. Is the following re-statement of your post synonymous with your original?
So we have a situation where we cannot tell the difference between what is designed (that which could not have evolved) and what does evolve.

When Paley said that some things were obviously designed, he used the example of a watch. And yes, it’s pretty obvious that something as inorganic as a watch did not evolve (and note that I specifically did not say ‘something as complicated as a watch’ because there is a universe full of things that are vastly more intricate and complex than a simple clockwork watch).

And Behe and his chums at the Design Institute spend a not inconsiderable amount of time searching for aspects of reality that carry the imprint of design. ‘Look,’ they say. ‘This cannot have evolved’. In obvious contrast to things that DO evolve. Otherwise, there is no contrast to point out. There is no anomaly.

The point I am making is that Behe and his ilk can only talk about design where it seems to them that something has come into existence for which they do not know the cause. It appears to them to be un-evolved. It appears to them to have been designed. This constant refrain is no more than saying: ‘I can see no way possible that this could have come about by evolved means, therefore…God’.
…

Was all this proof of design? I guess there must have been a Behe equivalent for each example, pulling out his soap box whenever he thought he could get a crowd and stating what surely must be obvious to everyone: ‘We have no idea how this could possibly be evolved, so it must be God’.

But what is evolved and what is not, cannot, it seems, be determined. And it appears that you want your cake and to eat it in any case. You want to back both horses in a two horse race: ‘Of course there are things that evolve (but just between you and me, it’s all designed anyway)’.

You should pick a position and then we might be able to discuss it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It seems the word “natural” has some ambiguity which confuses posters. Is the following re-statement of your post synonymous with your original?

That doesn’t look like a synonymous substitution. Looking back over his usage comments if the word “natural” were to be avoided all together variations of “designed” (designed, without design, not designed, so on) could be substituted in. Using that substitution in the quoted block and some of the previous messages produce the same statement (with the exceptions being some open compounds like “natural law”). One of the main questions was how to recognize if something were designed or not. “Intentionally” had also been used earlier and could also fit into the substitution.

 

[Bradski]

That doesn’t look like a synonymous substitution. Looking back over his usage comments if the word “natural” were to be avoided all together variations of “designed” (designed, without design, not designed, so on) could be substituted in. Using that substitution in the quoted block and some of the previous messages produce the same statement (with the exceptions being some open compounds like “natural law”). One of the main questions was how to recognize if something were designed or not. “Intentionally” had also been used earlier and could also fit into the substitution.

Agreed.

The term evolved doesn’t cover what we are talking about. If you are washed up on a desert island and there are lots of trees, then they obviously evolved there. If you see a pile of leaves, then that’s all it is - a pile of leaves. But if you come across a nest, then there has obviously been someone or something that has consciously arranged the leaves in a particular manner. As TS said, there is an indication of intentionality.

Someone or something has decided to arrange material in a particular manner that would not have happened as part of the natural process.

If you want to claim that making a nest is a natural process then you are missing the point.

If God designed the leaves, if there was an intention that they look as they do and operate as they do, then how do we tell?

 

[o_mlly]

…But if you come across a nest, then there has obviously been someone or something that has consciously arranged the leaves in a particular manner. As TS said, there is an indication of intentionality.

Someone or something has decided to arrange material in a particular manner …

OK. Then the post is not an argument but merely an observation, interesting but trivial as it has no explanatory power.

The observation that some things are intentionally arranged in a particular manner (designed) is at odds, not with Behe to whom you condescended, but rather to Darwin.
“I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind in the details.”
Charles Darwin, letter, July 12, 1870.
[darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-7273.xml](https://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-7273.xml)

Apparently, what you see with the naked eye, Behe sees with his microscopic eye - not everything is explained by Darwin’s theory, somethings are intelligently designed. And, I suppose that is as far as we can go if evolution is still a banned topic on this forum.