Can you challenge this "social proof of God"?

[xianghua]

not necessarily. We start from different points of origin (in our logic) and with differences in our underlying assumptions. We are often unaware of our own assumptions - because they seem to us so "obvious" - they are part of the very foundation of our thinking processes. But the sum total of these assumptions (as well as preconceptions and predispositions) differ from person to person.

If you assume there is a higher power, a higher Being, it is not difficult for you to attribute design to that power or being. Indeed if you also believe deep down that that power or Being is the creator, you cannot reach any other conclusion than that it or s/he is responsible for the evidence of design you see.

But if you assume there is no higher power or Being, it goes against your deepest thinking to conclude that it or s/he is behind the design. In fact, if you really really really don't believe that there can be anything outside the material world, I would think it is not possible for you to conclude that such a power or being could be responsible for the design that is apparent. To reach that conclusion you would have to abandon your deepest, most fundamental, starting point ... and that is super difficult.

I would submit that there are very few, if any, totally objective people around.

so if you will see a self replicating watch. you will conclude design or a natural process?

 

[pitabread]

so if you will see a self replicating watch. you will conclude design or a natural process?

If I ever see a self-replicating watch, I'm going to assume someone slipped me some LSD.

 

[Monna]

so if you will see a self replicating watch. you will conclude design or a natural process?

An interesting feature of the so-called 'natural laws' (gravity/acceleration, etc.) are focused on how a process behaves once it is started. Can you think of a single one that actually explains how the process starts? If I see a "self-replicating watch" I will not be able to use any of the natural physical "laws" to tell me how it was originially started. My conclusion that it probably was originally made by something or someone other than a self-replicating watch, comes from my subjective experience (which has led me to hold certain assumptions), nothing else. It doesn't tell me what or who started the process nor does it explain how.

 

[jayem]

why not? we know that complex things like a watch or a car are evidence for design (even if they were self replicating). this conclusion isnt objective?

Watches and cars aren't present in nature. It's undeniable that unassisted nature can transform simple components into more complex structures under the right conditions. A very basic example: water molecules in the air randomly contact particles of dust or pollen. Then, under the proper conditions of temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure these particles will grow into perfectly symmetrical hexagonal crystals with infinite variety and seemingly intricate design. But snowflakes come from perfectly natural physiochemical processes. It was demonstrated many years ago that water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, mildly heated and exposed to electrical discharges (simulating lightning strikes) will in a matter of weeks turn into a soup containing more than 20 of the amino acids that are the building blocks of proteins. Natural processes have the ability to turn the simple into the complex.

That being said, complexity does not indicate intelligent design. Simplicity does. Another example: you find a rock. It has a very irregular shape. Some surfaces are smooth, and some are rough. Some edges are sharp, and others are more blunt. It's mass is unbalanced with one end being heavier than the other. Then you find another rock. This one is perfectly round. The surface is uniformly smooth. It's mass is evenly distributed and it rolls without wobbling. The first rock is much more complex than the second. If you wanted to reproduce both rocks by 3-D printing, you'd need many more lines of code to produce the first one than the second. But which rock is more likely to have been made by natural forces, and which one is likely to have purposefully made?

 

[xianghua]

If I ever see a self-replicating watch, I'm going to assume someone slipped me some LSD.

and you will still conclude design. right?

 

[xianghua]

. My conclusion that it probably was originally made by something or someone other than a self-replicating watch, comes from my subjective experience (which has led me to hold certain assumptions), nothing else. It doesn't tell me what or who started the process nor does it explain how.

great. so your best guess will still be design. right?

 

[xianghua]

Watches and cars aren't present in nature. It's undeniable that unassisted nature can transform simple components into more complex structures under the right conditions.

its true for several cases. but nature will never produce something like a wtach or a spinning motor. they are too complex to evolve by a natural process:

image from Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline

 

[pitabread]

and you will still conclude design. right?

No, I will conclude that I'm hallucinating.

Y'know, given the fact that watches don't reproduce.

 

[jayem]

its true for several cases. but nature will never produce something like a wtach or a spinning motor. they are too complex to evolve by a natural process:

image from Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline

Of course nature can produce such structures. Flagella evolved from existing cellular components.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex | New Scientist

You're entitled to believe whatever you like. But all you have is the argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't conceive of how nature can create biological systems. So there must be some supernatural entity at work. No offense meant, but this is a rather primitive mode of thinking.

 

[xianghua]

Of course nature can produce such structures. Flagella evolved from existing cellular components.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex | New Scientist

You're entitled to believe whatever you like. But all you have is the argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't conceive of how nature can create biological systems. So there must be some supernatural entity at work. No offense meant, but this is a rather primitive mode of thinking.

not realy.

1) first: those proteins arent identical but similar. so they cant say that they has other functions since they arent the same proteins.

2) many of those proteins are from several kinds of bacteria. so we cant just mix them in a bacteria to form a flagellum.

3) even if we ignore all of this, what is the chance for mixing about 30 different parts in about 10^7 bases genome to get a minimal flagellum?

4) we just moved the problem to another systems.

so maybe a motor cant evolve naturally after all.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

its true for several cases. but nature will never produce something like a wtach or a spinning motor. they are too complex to evolve by a natural process:

image from Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline

Watches and cars are not evidence for design in and of themselves. They show evidence of design because we know how they were designed and made and by whom. Likewise, we know how proteins are made and how they can form structures. We know that one is made by people and one occurs naturally. Until the Designer is identified and the methods of design are identified and demonstrated we can only conclude that natural structures occur naturally.

 

[xianghua]

Watches and cars are not evidence for design in and of themselves.They show evidence of design because we know how they were designed and made and by whom.

so if we will find a car on another planet we cant conclude design since we cant know who designed it?

 

[HitchSlap]

Not even one of his straw men convinced me of a god/s.

1) believers say that they have scientifically proven God. How come? By simple confession, that they are theists. Look: there is Church Dogma of the Existence of God. A dogma is, by definition, is the absolute true knowledge. It can never be changed or destroyed, as the indestructible is God.

2) According to believers, the critics have not destroyed any of these proofs.
3) Therefore, in the believing community, God is proved objectively and scientifically.
4) Believers are forbidden to lie. False believers do lie, thus they are not believers. The proof deals only with believers and their critics.
5) Therefore, the critics are not fair.

Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, nobody is delusional, sick, criminal, liar and unrepentant sinner, until opposite would be proven. But in the proof is proven, that critics of God-proofs are not fair, it means that they are unfair liars, trolls, and mockers of the proofs. Consciously or subconsciously they are doing the works of their father - satan. The satan is father of lie.
believers say that they have scientifically proven God. How come? By simple confession, that they are theists. Look: there is Church Dogma of the Existence of God. A dogma is, by definition, is the absolute true knowledge. It can never be changed or destroyed, as the indestructible is God.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

so if we will find a car on another planet we cant conclude design since we cant know who designed it?

I don't know. Maybe? That's the challenge that ID proponents need to meet. There needs to be a reliable method to distinguish designed objects from naturally occurring ones. To my knowledge ID has not formulated that method. If I give you a "spear head" shaped rock what objective method can you use to determine if it is indeed a spear head or just a spear head shaped rock? Right now they are identified as designed objects based on a known method of construction and what that produces and the context in which they are found. There are plenty of false positives.

 

[xianghua]

I don't know. Maybe? That's the challenge that ID proponents need to meet. There needs to be a reliable method to distinguish designed objects from naturally occurring ones. To my knowledge ID has not formulated that method. If I give you a "spear head" shaped rock what objective method can you use to determine if it is indeed a spear head or just a spear head shaped rock? Right now they are identified as designed objects based on a known method of construction and what that produces and the context in which they are found. There are plenty of false positives.

just maybe? im sure that i will find such a car i will conclude design. we that such objects are evidence for design because they are too complicated to evolve naturally.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

just maybe? im sure that i will find such a car i will conclude design. we that such objects are evidence for design because they are too complicated to evolve naturally.

You don't conclude design on a car because it's complicated though. You conclude it because you know what a car is and where it comes from. If you found a "car" on mars then by comparison you could assume design, perhaps, but that's not really the ultimate goal for design. There needs to be a method to detect design that is objective and reliable. Complexity on its own is not enough. We see complex things all the time that we know are naturally occurring. What are those objective methods? That's a challenge IDer's need to meet.

 

[Monna]

but nature will never produce something like a wtach

We are beginning to understand that nature has indeed the equivalent of watches - a very important and complex system ordinary people call their "body clock." Even plants have appropriate systems to tell them when to start the process of letting their leaves fall off, begin the winter close-down process, and then the spring time re-awakening. Other clocks turn the processes involving chlorophyll to start and stop. Beyond plants, many animals have clocks to entice them to hibernate and wake up. You have inbuilt systems that tell you better than any clock, when you are hungry or thirsty, when your bladder is full, etc. Far more sophiscticated than a clock because they are turned to functions rather than steady units of mechanical pendulum swings. Your watch may tell you at work that it's lunch time, but your stomach may tell you something quite different.

 

[Monna]

Are we getting off the core subject of "social proof" of God? It seems to be there is a digression to scientific or technical proofs of God. But then I didn't really understand what a "social proof" of anything is.

 

[xianghua]

You don't conclude design on a car because it's complicated though. You conclude it because you know what a car is and where it comes from.

ok. so since we know that a spinning motor comes from a designer, we can conclude that a flagellum (spinning motor) were designed too?

 

[xianghua]

We are beginning to understand that nature has indeed the equivalent of watches - a very important and complex system ordinary people call their "body clock." Even plants have appropriate systems to tell them when to start the process of letting their leaves fall off, begin the winter close-down process, and then the spring time re-awakening. Other clocks turn the processes involving chlorophyll to start and stop. Beyond plants, many animals have clocks to entice them to hibernate and wake up. You have inbuilt systems that tell you better than any clock, when you are hungry or thirsty, when your bladder is full, etc. Far more sophiscticated than a clock because they are turned to functions rather than steady units of mechanical pendulum swings. Your watch may tell you at work that it's lunch time, but your stomach may tell you something quite different.

ok. so if i conclude that a watch were designed then i can conclude the same for human. or a flagellum.