Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Ido regard design as a fallacy. I have given you methods wherby you can for yourslef ascertain the origin of your own thoughts, and by extension what you might consider to be the thoughts of others, but you refuse to entertain them. My explanation would only be an occasion for you to be contentious and demand “proof’,” something to which I have indicated the means on several occassions. And how in the name of goodness you associate me with Hume, I haven’t the foggiest notion, but you seem to be able to make connections with great alacrityu, whether they have foundation or not. You need to demonstrate to me, point by point, how you confuse me, on the basis of your quoting him and my posts to date, how you do this. Or maybe I don’t want to know. OK, I don’t.

As I’ve pointed out before your methods don’t come into the realm of philosophy. So it is better to leave the matter there with no hard feelings. God bless.

 

[Gaber]

As I’ve pointed out before your methods don’t come into the realm of philosophy. So it is better to leave the matter there with no hard feelings. God bless.

OK, I see. So while it is right and proper for philosophers to ignorantly debate about what the source of thought is, it is not proper for them to find out what it is by expereince and have an actual basis for discussing it from a standpoint other than conjecture. I guess it is like TV drama: You can’t be reasonable or real about something or they have to cancel tha show becsause the issues are settled on some mutually agreeable basis. Well, I guess it was a mistake for me to offer something that might cancel your source of entertainment. My appologies.

 

[tonyrey]

OK, I see. So while it is right and proper for philosophers to ignorantly debate about what the source of thought is, it is not proper for them to find out what it is by expereince and have an actual basis for discussing it from a standpoint other than conjecture. I guess it is like TV drama: You can’t be reasonable or real about something or they have to cancel tha show becsause the issues are settled on some mutually agreeable basis. Well, I guess it was a mistake for me to offer something that might cancel your source of entertainment. My appologies.

Farewell.

 

[buffalo]

**Another example of common design. Everyday it gets worse for design deniers.
**

**
**

Human-Like Spine Morphology Found in Aquatic Eel Fossil

For decades, scientists believed that a spine with multiple segments was an exclusive feature of land-dwelling animals. But the discovery of the same anatomical feature in a 345-million-year-old eel suggests that this complex anatomy arose separately from — and perhaps before — the first species to walk on land.

 

[tonyrey]

Another example of common design. Everyday it gets worse for design deniers.
Human-Like Spine Morphology Found in Aquatic Eel Fossil
For decades, scientists believed that a spine with multiple segments was an exclusive feature of land-dwelling animals. But the discovery of the same anatomical feature in a 345-million-year-old eel suggests that this complex anatomy arose separately from — and perhaps before — the first species to walk on land.

Convergent development is powerful evidence that their amazing success in different circumstances is not due solely to their environment but to the nature of the organisms themselves. They are not cogs in a machine, i.e. passive products but creative agents which transcend the laws of physics and chemistry in their ability to solve problems **without knowing what they are doing.

The urge to survive has never been explained scientifically nor has the plasticity which enables them to seek for solutions. The only reasonable explanation is that they are created and directed by an intangible intelligence.
**

 

[wanstronian]

Another example of common design. Everyday it gets worse for design deniers.

Human-Like Spine Morphology Found in Aquatic Eel Fossil

For decades, scientists believed that a spine with multiple segments was an exclusive feature of land-dwelling animals. But the discovery of the same anatomical feature in a 345-million-year-old eel suggests that this complex anatomy arose separately from — and perhaps before — the first species to walk on land.

Wow - looks like you’ve read into this story something that completely isn’t there.

How do you contend that this trips up design-deniers? Tell you what - produce something that proves design - that’ll do the trick. Of course, nobody’s managed it in decades, so I don’t fancy your chances.

 

[tonyrey]

Tell you what - produce something that proves design - that’ll do the trick. Of course, nobody’s managed it in decades, so I don’t fancy your chances.

Produce something that creates solutions to its problems - and explain how it does it…

 

[tonyrey]

The immense age and vastness of the universe are often used as evidence that life on this planet is unintended and insignificant. Yet if only this planet existed - and it weren’t so old - life would be insignificant because there is no life elsewhere!

To satisfy these demands a universe has to be between the two extremes. What is the age and size of a designed universe? No answer is forthcoming nor ever will be because it is a ridiculous question…

Time and space are irrelevant. But are they? Of course not! The immense age and vastness of the universe are evidence of **immense **power - although power alone is not enough to make the universe significant.

Something else is needed. It exists on this planet - and probably on other planets given the vastness of the universe. The immense complexity and richness of life are evidence of the **immense wisdom **needed to design both the environment and its inhabitants.

That is why we are justified in saying:

“Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory…”

The alternative is to say:

“Ours is the kingdom, the power and the glory…”

because we are clever enough to work out that we may be the wisest and most powerful beings that exist! Nothing succeeds like the success of science - apart, that is, from the success of nature (which is far more beautiful and fulfilling).

“Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark…”

 

[reggieM]

The immense complexity and richness of life are evidence of the **immense wisdom **needed to design both the environment and its inhabitants.

Argument 1.

Life is not immensely complex.
Life does not possess immense richness.

So, immense wisdom was not required to design both the environment and its inhabitants.

Argument 2.

Life does possess immense complexity and richness but natural laws acting on matter can create all of that.

So, immense wisdom was not required to design both the environment and its inhabitants.

True?

 

[tonyrey]

**Argument 1.**Life is not immensely complex.
Life does not possess immense richness.

So, immense wisdom was not required to design both the environment and its inhabitants.**Argument 2.**Life does possess immense complexity and richness but natural laws acting on matter can create all of that.

So, immense wisdom was not required to design both the environment and its inhabitants.True?

Evidence is required for those assertions…

They certainly contradict the teaching of Jesus.

The claim that “natural laws acting on matter can create all of that” does not explain the reason for the existence of natural laws and physical constants essential for life given that there are countless possible natural laws and physical constants…

 

[rossum]

The immense complexity and richness of life are evidence of the **immense wisdom **needed to design both the environment and its inhabitants.

I find that this argument falls short. It is merely the first stage. The second stage looks like:

The immense complexity and richness of God are evidence of the immense wisdom needed to design God.

If we can infer design from complexity, then God is designed. If we cannot infer design from the complexity of God, then why can we infer design from the complexity of life?

rossum

 

[Gaber]

I find that this argument falls short. It is merely the first stage. The second stage looks like:

The immense complexity and richness of God are evidence of the immense wisdom needed to design God.

If we can infer design from complexity, then God is designed. If we cannot infer design from the complexity of God, then why can we infer design from the complexity of life?

rossum

Phew! A breath of fresh air! I wonder how many “designer gods” populate folks anthropomorphizing heads?

 

[tonyrey]

I find that this argument falls short. It is merely the first stage. The second stage looks like:The immense complexity and richness of God are evidence of the immense wisdom needed to design God.
If we can infer design from complexity, then God is designed.
If we cannot infer design from the complexity of God, then why can we infer design from the complexity of life?

You are putting the cart before the horse. According to that argument a designer must always be similar to what is designed!

1. It doesn’t follow from the fact that we can infer design from complexity that God is designed.
2. A Designer does not imply the existence of another Designer because that would lead to an infinite regress.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever that infinite regresses occur.
4. The principle of parsimony (Occam’s Razor) also points to one Designer.
5. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to believe there is **one **Designer.

It is theoretically possible that Design exists without a Designer but that hypothesis raises more problems than it solves. It is not only unintelligible but also inadequate - like Hume’s reduction of the mind to “a bundle of perceptions”.

 

[tonyrey]

Phew! A breath of fresh air! I wonder how many “designer gods” populate folks anthropomorphizing heads?

A fog of foul air! I wonder how much purposeless dung clogs folk’s **depersonalising **minds!

As King Lear said "Give me an ounce of civet, good apothecary, sweeten my imagination!

Civet is perfume made from the anal glands of cats! If that is the remedy that sweetens the imagination you can imagine the foulness of the contents of the imagination…

 

[rossum]

1. It doesn’t follow from the fact that we can infer design from complexity that God is designed.

If we are talking about Intelligent Design, then the designer must obviously be intelligent. This does not apply in the case of unintelligent design of course. I suspect that you would describe God as an intelligent designer, rather than an unintelligent designer. Also, being omniscient, the Christian God has to be very complex because He knows everything there is to know, which is a huge amount of information and according to ID theory, information has a very close relationship to complexity.

If you allow the designer to be less complex than the designed, then you set an upper limit on the complexity of the designer. Are humans designed? Is the designer less complex or more complex than humans?

Are amoebas designed? Is the designer less complex or more complex than amoebas?

You are opening an extremely large can of worms if you are going to allow a designer that is less complex than that which is designed. How complex was that very first barely alive proto-cell? Could there be an intelligent designer that was even less complex?

1. A Designer does not imply the existence of another Designer because that would lead to an infinite regress.

If the designer is complex, then the origin of that complexity has to be explained. After all, much of ID theory involves looking at complexity, and showing that it must have originated from intelligent design. Any intelligent designer must be at least complex enough to allow it to be intelligent.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that infinite regresses occur.

They occur all the time. Pi has an infinite number of decimal digits, yet we can easily use pi in our calculations.

1. The principle of parsimony (Occam’s Razor) also points to one Designer.

Or to zero designers, or to many designers: the designer of cheetahs to catch gazelles; the designer of gazelles to avoid cheetahs. One designer working at cross-purposes with itself?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

1. It doesn’t follow from the fact that we can infer design from complexity that God is designed.
   If we are talking about Intelligent Design, then the designer must obviously be intelligent. This does not apply in the case of unintelligent design of course. I suspect that you would describe God as an intelligent designer, rather than an unintelligent designer. Also, being omniscient, the Christian God has to be very complex because He knows everything there is to know, which is a huge amount of information and according to ID theory, information has a very close relationship to complexity.

They occur all the time. Pi has an infinite number of decimal digits, yet we can easily use pi in our calculations.
Mathematical properties do not always or necessarily correspond to reality. There is no scientific evidence of an actual infinite regress.

1. The principle of parsimony (Occam’s Razor) also points to one Designer.
   Or to zero designers, or to many designers: the designer of cheetahs to catch gazelles; the designer of gazelles to avoid cheetahs. One designer working at cross-purposes with itself?

How on earth can the notion of many designers be parsimonious?!

I have already given reasons why the no Designer hypothesis is unsatisfactory. The success of science is powerful evidence that purposeful intelligence is incomparably more efficient than purposeless processes which lack insight and knowledge. Buddhism presupposes purposeful intelligence - without which spiritual development is impossible.

[/QUOTE]

 

[rossum]

Speculation about God’s complexity is undermined by the uniqueness of divine knowledge which obviously cannot be interpreted in human terms. All our descriptions of the Creator are analogical and shouldn’t be interpreted literally.

Then all attempts at logical discussion of God are vain and useless. A pity nobody told Saint Thomas Aquinas.

What about the designer proposed by ID? ID proponents assure us that ID is purely scientific and not religious at all. My argument may not apply to God, but the ID designer is well within the ambit of science and of logic. The designer has to be at least as intelligent as a chimpanzee, and hence the designer has to be complex enough to require a designer.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Speculation about God’s complexity is undermined by the uniqueness of divine knowledge which obviously cannot be interpreted in human terms. All our descriptions of the Creator are analogical and shouldn’t be interpreted literally.

Then all attempts at logical discussion of God are vain and useless. A pity nobody told Saint Thomas Aquinas.

You obviously don’t know his explanation of the three ways of knowing God:

According to Aquinas all our talk about God is analogical, since when we talk about God we predicate things of him in a manner similar to the way in which we predicate them of creatures. A consequence of the via negationis is that talk about God is not univocal–words used of God will not have the same meaning as they do when used of creatures. But the way of causality (and the principle that effects resemble their causes) entails that talk about God will not be equivocal.

philofreligion.homestead.com/files/aquinas1.htm

What about the designer proposed by ID? ID proponents assure us that ID is purely scientific and not religious at all. My argument may not apply to God, but the ID designer is well within the ambit of science and of logic. The designer has to be at least as intelligent as a chimpanzee, and hence the designer has to be complex enough to require a designer.

ID is concerned solely with Design, not with a Designer which comes into the province of metaphysics. It is a subsection of the Design argument.

 

[rossum]

rossum;9358170:

ID is concerned solely with Design, not with a Designer which comes into the province of metaphysics. It is a subsection of the Design argument.

How convenient. As soon as there is a problem with ID it retreats into “we don’t say anything about the designer”.

That may be (bad) philosophy, but it isn’t science.

rossum

 

[Sample]

A completely new dimension of reality is opened up by the view that the universe is the product of -]Design/-] Kris Kringle . It implies that purpose is not a rare phenomenon but fundamental and widespread. Even inanimate objects are valuable and significant because without them life would be impossible. This is where science is entirely uninformative and insignificant because it tells us nothing about Kris Kringle’s reasons for our existence. To leave people with the impression that science explains -]everything/-] Kris Kringle is to leave them with no authentic purpose at all. It doesn’t tell us how we should behave towards others or even towards ourselves. It doesn’t distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. In other words it leads to a dead end…

One of the saddest features of contemporary society is its loss of moral values and the pursuit of pleasure rather than perfection. A typical secular interpretation of life is given by Clarence Darrow:

• A Modern Introduction to Philosophy - edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, p. 453.

Science is based on the principle that there are explanations for everything - even though they may not be of the type we expect. Science is inadequate because it excludes explanations in terms of **purpose **which are the basis of a rational existence. We all have to work out our own way of life and decide what is more important than anything else. Even if we don’t believe in Kris Kringle we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living. So in practice we live **as if **we don’t exist by Chance.

-]Design/-] Kris Kringle implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don’t regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.

As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how **useful **we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:

“He also serves who only stands and waits…”

The most convincing evidence for -]Design/-] Kris Kringle is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy. This is not to mention the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and even work - but it is the spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration. Many people today cannot understand how monks and nuns can be happy and fulfilled when they are isolated from all that gives others their reasons for living. Yet their closeness to -]God/-] Kris Kringle is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the -]saints /-]elves and -]mystics/-] Mrs. Kringles of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.

“By their -]fruits/-] peppermint sticks you shall know them…”

It is the fertility of -]Design/-] Kris Kringle that makes it far superior to its rival.

Fixed. There is as much evidence for your so-called Design conjecture as there is for Kris Kringle. Ho, ho, ho.