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.
"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. I don't need to "believe" in gravity in order to logically evaluate the evidence of it and determine it exists. Just a fun fact.
"The other way around being?"
Life doesn't emulate machines, machines emulate life. Meaning that what you see as designed in nature because it works like a machine does, is a correlation error. We make machines to simulate actions in living systems.
"They're functioning bodies that work like things humans make, except at an extremely small scale that humans aren't even close to achieving."
This makes my point for me. You are assuming that because it works like human-made machines, that it must be a "designed machine." But the alternative is that humans designed machines by looking at nature. So the simulation is the other way around, but people tend to forget this and then assume that living "machines" are examples of design because they appear similar to things humans made when humans were the ones copying nature.
"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 believe you believe it, but that doesn't make it true. And it doesn't mean you "know" objective truths about the universe because you make claims. I am asking how you know what you claim to know.
"I do think things can evolve for specific purposes/functions. The question is who or what started it all and how and why?"
No one designed it, making "why" irrelevant. The alternative is that the same natural processes (natural selection) shapes the way life works. So living systems weren't designed for any purpose, they evolved by being shaped by their environment and inter- and intraspecific competition. There is objectively verifiable evidence to substantiate this.
"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."
How do you know something is designed if you don't know of examples of "non-design?" This doesn't make sense to me. You assume everything is designed, I get that, but how do you KNOW?
"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 didn't exist for billions of years before I was born. So I have a theoretical framework for what it is like to experience non-existence. 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 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."
My example remains. An assumption is made before any evidence is presented to validate said assumption. What would be the likelihood of the assumption being true if there is nothing to corroborate it?
