Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No middle steps???...I look at things
...and easily conclude
No middle steps???
What youve outlined is not reasoning at all. Its more like your "hunch" or your preference.
What did you expect, people changing their way of thinking just because you write "it's obvious"?Well, I don't know why I even come to this forum, you guys are pretty much dead set on not believing no matter what I say, right...?
God Bless!
Only in basically the same way you detect primitive stone tools in a rock pile. I don't know of any other way. That is why SETI is looking for a narrow band modulated RF signal (characteristic of human radio communication and not known to be produced naturally) first, rather than trying to decode every signal they get. There is, so far as I know, no way of discriminating between a naturally produced object and the product of any putative divine engineer.But you said you know that things can't be "detected" as designed meaning that you must know of ways to distinguish between undesigned and designed things. Or when you say you "know" do you mean something else? You assume?
Or perhaps there are no products of any putative divine engineer because there is no divine engineer to begin with.Only in basically the same way you detect primitive stone tools in a rock pile. I don't know of any other way. That is why SETI is looking for a narrow band modulated RF signal (characteristic of human radio communication and not known to be produced naturally) first, rather than trying to decode every signal they get. There is, so far as I know, no way of discriminating between a naturally produced object and the product of any putative divine engineer.
That's not how logic works.
Just don't expect to convince anyone with that.Okay, let me put it his way then, my life experiences have caused me to have my current beliefs.
How's that for logical?
It's simply a matter of subjective perspective. I look at things like the tiny machines in our cells and the inner mechanics of atoms and easily conclude that these processes were not randomly established for no reason, rather they were intended for a purpose and we can observe the purposes in real time. So from my point of view, there is no evidence anywhere in reality of something that isn't designed or purposed for a reason, at least as far as I know to this point, therefore according to your own definition of 'possible' - non-design is impossible in this reality because there's currently no evidence for it.
In this case the evidence could easily suggest murder, but you're not willing consider who may have committed the murder because you think that person doesn't exist. This is a really morbid analogy by the way
I was just going by the process you outlined for how you determine if a thing is designed, in your response to TBD:Lol, plenty of middle steps throughout my life time until this point. It's all a learning process.
Only in basically the same way you detect primitive stone tools in a rock pile. I don't know of any other way. That is why SETI is looking for a narrow band modulated RF signal (characteristic of human radio communication and not known to be produced naturally) first, rather than trying to decode every signal they get. There is, so far as I know, no way of discriminating between a naturally produced object and the product of any putative divine engineer.
"It's simply a matter of subjective perspective."
But I am asking you about things that should be objectively true.
"I look at things like the tiny machines in our cells and the inner mechanics of atoms and easily conclude that these processes were not randomly established for no reason, rather they were intended for a purpose and we can observe the purposes in real time."
1) What you call "machines" seems to imply that they function like human-made machines instead of the other way around.
2) How do you "easily" conclude this and does that mean that your conclusion is valid? What evidence do you have to substantiate and qualify your conclusion?
3) "Randomly established for no reason" isn't the alternative. Why do you think things can't evolve for specific purposes/functions?
"
So from my point of view, there is no evidence anywhere in reality of something that isn't designed or purposed for a reason, at least as far as I know to this point, therefore according to your own definition of 'possible' - non-design is impossible in this reality because there's currently no evidence for it."
If you don't have examples of non-design to compare your examples of design to, then how can you know anything is designed?
"In this case the evidence could easily suggest murder, but you're not willing consider who may have committed the murder because you think that person doesn't exist. This is a really morbid analogy by the way"
I haven't given any details about the setup. I used a very generic and simple analogy to try and make a point.
You seem to be jumping to a conclusion because of personal reasons. This would be akin to a detective reading an obituary and concluding someone was murdered when there is no evidence to validate that conclusion.
I was just going by the process you outlined for how you determine if a thing is designed, in your response to TBD:
1. I see
2. I conclude.
So now you say there's more?
For instance?
Why do you have to confess and repent when you are wrong about whether a thing was designed or not?Something like:
1. I see
2. I assume
3. I conclude
4. Realize error
5. Confess
6. Repent
7. Live on, thanks to God
Why do you have to confess and repent when you are wrong about whether a thing was designed or not?
Your question is akin to asking someone how they can know existence if they have no experience of non-existence. Non-existence shouldn't have anything to do with the fact that I exist now and can experience it. Similarly, non-design shouldn't have anything to do with the fact that I have examples of design.
One can't know objective truth without first accepting it(believing it). Just a fun fact.
The other way around being?
They're functioning bodies that work like things humans make, except at an extremely small scale that humans aren't even close to achieving.
My conclusion is a real conclusion and I think it's valid, but whether you do or not is up to you. The evidence I have is myself and the facts and information I employ in what I say, this is an online forum after all, we're all limited to claims and information as evidence for what's true.
I do think things can evolve for specific purposes/functions. The question is who or what started it all and how and why?
My conclusions to these questions is why believe in God.
Not sure I completely understand the question. The fact that I don't have examples of non-design is how I can know design is possible.
Your question is akin to asking someone how they can know existence if they have no experience of non-existence. Non-existence shouldn't have anything to do with the fact that I exist now and can experience it. Similarly, non-design shouldn't have anything to do with the fact that I have examples of design.
I understood your point, which is why I said the evidence could easily suggest murder. I wasn't actually sure if it does or not, but if it did then you'd be unwilling to consider who did it because you don't think they exist.
Not sure how that's analogous, considering my explanation above.
I think he said it all here:...What I am asking is how do you go from an assumption about things being designed to the "knowledge" that they are designed? Because it appears that you've drawn the conclusion that your designer exists first before determining "design."...
I think he said it all here:
1. I see
2. I assume
3. I conclude
...
Thats his process for arriving at 'knowledge'. I think we can all appreciate the weakness in reasoning, and the strength in faith on display here. Thats fine as long as we all call it what it is.
Or it might be an alien like us only in that it has a reasoning mind able to design and create.Yes.
Finding things just like we make is evidence of someone just like us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?