An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Nithavela]

Something like:

1. I see
2. I assume
3. I conclude
4. Realize error
5. Confess
6. Repent
7. Live on, thanks to God

 

[durangodawood]

Well this is part of my point. I don't know what they mean when they say "I know."

I wish people here would just stop claiming to "know" by reasoning/observation when upon examination it turns out they instead know by faith, or intuition.

At least Chriliman was honest enough to lay it out for us.

 

[durangodawood]

Or it might be an alien like us only in that it has a reasoning mind able to design and create.
The rest of it could be entirely different.

If their products are like ours it also means they have bodies, needs, desires, and tastes like ours.

 

[durangodawood]

If their products are like ours it also means they have bodies, needs, desires, and tastes like ours.

It would be funny if we found a chrome art deco toaster thingy on another world and it turned out to be gloves.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is what I am trying to get at, and I will use the stone tool example. We have rocks without tool marks from intelligent processes, and we have stone tools that do have tool marks from being worked by humans. We have something "designed" to compare to something "undesigned" that allows us to conclude one way or the other. Meaning that there is direct evidence to link one of the stones in the pile to a human (or animal in general) having modified it for use as a tool. So what I am asking is how do you make the same determination for life (and/or the universe) in general? Do you have an example of a "non-designed" universe or "non-designed" life to compare to your "designed" versions?

I don't know. My feeling is that it isn't possible. I'm not even the right person to ask. I'm a theist but my notion is that a universe which appears to be the product of natural causes is entirely compatible with my faith.

 

[Radrook]

If their products are like ours it also means they have bodies, needs, desires, and tastes like ours.

It would make them material creatures needing perhaps shelter, food, and weapons, but the degree or nature of their needs, desires and the configuration of the bodies could be very different forcing us only mainly to identify on the creative ability aspect. Especially if they resemble some hideous version of a squid.

 

[Chriliman]

Lets tackle one thing at a time.

"One can't know objective truth without first accepting it(believing it). Just a fun fact."

Not a "fun fact." One can determine objective truths by looking at the evidence and logic behind the reasoning for it.

The act of determining something involves accepting it as true(believing it). True or false?

I don't need to "believe" in gravity in order to logically evaluate the evidence of it and determine it exists.

In order to claim to have knowledge you must first accept what is true and then convey it to others, otherwise you're not actually being truthful because you may not actually believe what you're telling someone. True or false?

 

[durangodawood]

The act of determining something involves accepting it as true(believing it). True or false?

Not sure understand. Let me put it in a sentence.

"The act of determining the cause of death involves accepting the cause of death as true. True or false?"

Is that an example of what your asking? Not sure if i can make proper sense of it.

 

[durangodawood]

...Especially if they resemble some hideous version of a squid.

Theres a word for that: squideous.

 

[TBDude65]

Lets tackle one thing at a time.



The act of determining something involves accepting it as true(believing it). True or false?



In order to claim to have knowledge you must first accept what is true and then convey it to others, otherwise you're not actually being truthful because you may not actually believe what you're telling someone. True or false?

False
False

One doesn't have to assume or accept something as true before knowing it's true. That's circular logic.

 

[TBDude65]

I don't know. My feeling is that it isn't possible. I'm not even the right person to ask. I'm a theist but my notion is that a universe which appears to be the product of natural causes is entirely compatible with my faith.

Then how do you know that life and the universe are designed? Or when you say "know" do you mean "assume on faith?"

 

[Chriliman]

Not sure understand. Let me put it in a sentence.

"The act of determining the cause of death involves accepting the cause of death as true. True or false?"

Is that an example of what your asking? Not sure if i can proper sense of it.

Meaning the evidence will point to the true cause of death, but whether we accept it or not is up to us.

 

[Chriliman]

One doesn't have to assume or accept something as true before knowing it's true. That's circular logic.

I think you're right about that. One can have knowledge of something and still not accept it as true.

 

[durangodawood]

Meaning the evidence will point to the true cause of death, but whether we accept it or not is up to us.

So we are stipulating that evidence does point to a cause of death in a certain case?

If so, then are you asking a free-will question about whether we're an agent capable of a genuine decision to accept it? (I dont know)

Or, assuming 'ordinary free will', are you asking if we might willfully disregard meaningful evidence? (yes)

Honestly, your question is a bit vague.

 

[Speedwell]

Then how do you know that life and the universe are designed? Or when you say "know" do you mean "assume on faith?"

I never said I knew it. I believe it by faith. But not that it was designed, but that it was created--a distinction which is lost on some of our theist colleagues, I'm afraid.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why not...?

....because it doesn't appear to be designed. I'm not sure what you're asking me exactly. Is there anything in the universe that you don't consider "designed"?

Again, the discovering another planet analogy in my OP, there is plenty, plenty of evidence of his handiwork and his hand in things, but you say there is no evidence cause you don't see any inhabitants... Radrook has posted many threads on here that are plenty of evidence, you just must have something personal against believing them/it...

Nothing personal at all...and I didn't say anything regarding "inhabitants" of other planets so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

I've been on a few of Rad's threads, made some points, exposed flaws in reasoning and logic...but I rarely get a reply. The fact that there is no response to the points I've made forthcoming says a lot to me about the strength of this "design" argument.

Just look at some of the threads and info on here, just for starters...

Why do you think it's not intelligently designed?, or there is no mind behind it all...?

I have looked at the threads and "info"...and I have made several counter points to them.

Is there a specific example you'd like to discuss? I'd be more than willing to have that discussion with you and if you give me a specific example of where you're finding "design" I can probably explain rather easily why I don't...

Without that basis for a discussion though...there isn't much to tell you other than I don't see any evidence of design. It's like if I told you that there was a ton of evidence outside that it had rained all morning...and you stepped outside and saw that the ground is dry, there's no standing water anywhere, no water spots on the cars outside, and clear skies. You'd tell me you don't see any evidence of rain this morning...so it would be rather pointless for me to ask you why you don't see any evidence. You don't see any evidence because it doesn't exist.

I don't see any evidence for design. I don't see it because to me, it doesn't appear to exist. If it appears to exist to you...you'll have to present some of that evidence and explain why you think it's evidence for design.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Something like:

1. I see
2. I assume
3. I conclude
4. Realize error
5. Confess
6. Repent
7. Live on, thanks to God

I think you're missing the point entirely...

If I were to ask you "how do you recognize design?" and your answer amounted to "I know design when I see it...because it's something that appears designed to me." then you don't really have a method of recognition beyond "It's designed because I say so." and the only criteria for something designed that you hold is nothing more than your personal opinion.

 

[Chriliman]

I think you're missing the point entirely...

If I were to ask you "how do you recognize design?" and your answer amounted to "I know design when I see it...because it's something that appears designed to me." then you don't really have a method of recognition beyond "It's designed because I say so." and the only criteria for something designed that you hold is nothing more than your personal opinion.

I see your point. Design is a very subjective concept.

 

[Radrook]

I see your point. Design is a very subjective concept.

It need not be and isn't for those approaching it properly:

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Intelligent Design

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious that life's design, has a design and a designer behind it...? It should be obvious that Life or this reality was engineered and has an engineer behind it...

Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?

As an atheist, I don't deny that there is nore am I claiming that there isn't.
Rather, I'm simply not buying into the claim that there is.

There's a subtle, yet important, difference.

Is it because, you say, we may have proof of a thing that was intelligently designed, but because we don't have solid, irrefutable proof or evidence, specifically of the designer behind it, we refuse to believe... Although we will admit that things do overwhelmingly appear to have been intelligently designed, created, or orchestrated, or engineered, but, because we cannot literally see the designer behind the design, though we do think there is sufficient evidence to say it was all designed, created, orchestrated or engineered by a mind, because we can't literally see it, we don't believe in it, though there is plenty of evidence pointing at such a thing, we still do not believe...

I don't buy into the claim that there is, simply because I have never been presented with convincing evidence that it is an accurate claim.

Nore has anyone ever been able to present me with a compelling case to brand the universe or the stuff it contains as "designed".

That is like discovering some other earth like planet, and discovering whole cities, complete with machines and machinery, buildings, houses, roads, but no inhabitants.... And then saying, and concluding, well, since we do not see any inhabitants, we deny that there ever were any, and all of this stuff, just came out of nothing and thin air, I guess, is our theory...

No, not at all.

But we aren't talking about things like machines, buildings and cities or the ruins thereof. In fact... the fact that we have names for such structures, should be your first clue.

We are talking about biology and physics. Natural forces and processes, that can be observed and studied right here, right now.

Contrary to popular creationist opinion, Mt Rushmore is quite different from "just another mountain". And cars are quite different from any biological organism.