(moved) Question for Atheists: Is the existence of God a real question for you?

[quatona]

Yes, the attributes of God's solitude explains your question.

So is that:
a. an intelligent designer isn´t necessarily a functioning system, or
b. a functioning system isn´t necessarily designed, or
c. both?

 

[Tinyarch]

So is that:
a. an intelligent designer isn´t necessarily a functioning system, or
b. a functioning system isn´t necessarily designed, or
c. both?

Neither

Get out of the box.

 

[Cis.jd]

That isn't an example. You were quick to cite fishtanks and cars and planets orbiting... surely you can think of an example for something that you described here.

You asked what i think isn't a design and i gave it to you. What does this chunk of text have anything to do with my answer to your question. Now it's an example? Ok, you can still use that.. anything that has systems or functions, and language is a design. The fish tanks and cars are examples of that, they contain systems, they have functions, and it took math to engineer it.

 

[Freodin]

You asked what i think isn't a design and i gave it to you.

No, I didn't ask what you think isn't a design. I asked you for an example.

Please, present me with an example for something that you would say is not designed.

What does this chunk of text have anything to do with my answer to your question. Now it's an example? Ok, you can still use that.. anything that has systems or functions, and language is a design.

This "anything" is what I am asking you to provide. You have managed to dismiss every single example we have provided you.
I would like to know what - an example - you would be able to distinguish from "design".

The fish tanks and cars are examples of that, they contain systems, they have functions, and it took math to engineer it.

So what about a natural pond. It "contains" systems (I thought you said fishtanks were systems?), it has functions... but as no one "engineered" it, it didn't take math.

Is it designed or not?

 

[Cis.jd]

No, I didn't ask what you think isn't a design. I asked you for an example.

Ok, a good example would be a doodle on a piece of paper, music, dancing, holes in the ground, ...

This "anything" is what I am asking you to provide. You have managed to dismiss every single example we have provided you. I would like to know what - an example - you would be able to distinguish from "design".

There was no example that i dismissed because there wasn't an example provided in the first place. All though, i do think you are doing a better job than the rest of the atheists here.

So what about a natural pond. It "contains" systems (I thought you said fishtanks were systems?), it has functions... but as no one "engineered" it, it didn't take math. Is it designed or not?

First, ponds are frequently human constructed. Next, your natural pond example is another reference of an outcome from the systems in our universe so if we take this argument deeper, then yes it was designed because in order for it to exist we need the systems in our universe to fully function. Ponds are not systems, they are components to outcomes of a system. Same thing with caves. Ponds allow better reach for the hydraulic cycle as well as posing as a life source for plants and animals, which also contributes as a life force for everything else.

OBTW: I never said "Fish tanks were systems" i said, in order for you to make a glass enclosure into a Fish tank then you need to set up systems. The Fish Tank is an example of a living habitat-universe that is only possible by an intelligence setting it up.

 

[quatona]

Neither

So I take it your submission is that an intelligent designer is necessarily a functioning system,
and a functioning system is necessarily designed.

 

[Tinyarch]

So I take it your submission is that an intelligent designer is necessarily a functioning system,
and a functioning system is necessarily designed.

Nope

 

[Freodin]

Ok, a good example would be a doodle on a piece of paper, music, dancing, holes in the ground, ...

First, ponds are frequently human constructed.

So, ponds are "frequently" constructed by humans.

But music and dancing are not.

Ok, sorry, I give up. Keep thinking whatever you want about those irrational atheists.

 

[SteveB28]

I pretty much do. It is you doesn't have one. You did nothing but reference the systems i am talking about and giving more depth as to why it is a huge leap of faith to just believe it just happened.

This is a dishonest portrayal of the position of methodological naturalists such as myself. We do not contend that "it just happened", as you attempt to characterise. For those phenomena that have a substantial evidential support, we rely upon that support. For those that don't, we make the honest assessment of "we don't know".

This explanation has been presented to you several times. For you to continue making your puerile mischaracterisation speaks volumes of your intellectual integrity.....

That is incorrect. The Hydrologic cycle begins with the evaporation of water which would not happen if a component of the universe that allows this system to run (the sun) was ordered differently.

"Ordered differently" how? As was explained already, the cycle would still work if we were either closer to or further from our sun by quite a wide margin. Our current position is not the only one that would permit the cycle to run.

I don't know 100% but i do think the chances of it being a design is greater and logical compared "it just happened". I'm not closed to say that "it just happened" is 100% false, but there is absolutely no evidence for it (not even an example).

Again, you throw up a dishonest summary of the scientific position. Why do you feel driven to do that?

First of all the Big Bang was proposed by a priest, not an atheist. It is a theistic supporting theory.

Nonsense. When Lemaitre was proposing his theory, he was acting as a scientist! He was drawing upon the evidence from the natural world, in order to arrive at his conclusion of an expanding universe that must have had a starting point to that expansion. Yes, I am sure that he would posit that all of this was 'kick started' by a god, but the terms of his theory do not require this supposition for the theory to be stated! A scientific theory finds its merits in its evidential support, not from the style of collar worn by the man expounding it!

Second, how is stating that the universe has functions in it nonsense. This is the exact same argument of Newton and Galileo, while your puddle analogy was taken from either Dawkins or Krauss (i forgot exactly who made this).

Wrong again. It was Douglas Adams who so successfully satirised the position of you folk who have a conclusion desperately seeking a justification!

I don't know what you mean by "expressed", but it is perfect in the Golden Ratio.

Rubbish. There are many, many structures in the world that do not follow the approximation gained from Fibonacci's famous number pattern.

Just research it.

No, it is YOU who is in desperate need of some education! For starters, the ratio is not "perfect"....it is an approximation! You might as well attribute some mystical supernatural quality to Pi, because look......every circle formed seems to have that same ratio between its circumference and diameter.....gasp!

And the ratio is NOT seen in all of nature. For example, the much touted Nautilus shell does NOT reflect the Golden Ratio.....it's a logarithmic scale!

Even Leonardo Di Vinci made an artwork towards it.

Oh well....that settles it! A 16th Century artist discovered the ratio in several structures of the human body....case closed!

It's not me that is required to make you believe, it is you who is required to have me believe that "just happened". Even snow flakes are well fit in the golden ratio. I have not seen any art or design that fits the Golden Ratio that just happened.

Again, your dishonest portrayal....

I get that. You don't know, that is fine.

And nor do you...!

I will repeat, i am a skeptic who relies on materials, observance, and just evidence in general.

Then start behaving like one!

I have not seen systems, language, functional mechanisms and that golden ratio just happen with out a designer and until a good conflicting example is presented then there is no reason for me to just ride your claims that this isn't evidence. From what basis should i just jump and believe that this working universe just happened?

You could try being honest and recognise that YOU DONT KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, any more than anyone else does....!

 

[quatona]

Nope

So since you submit these statements are neither necessarily accurate nor not necessarily accurate, you have entered the realm of meaninglessness.

 

[Tinyarch]

So since you submit these statements are neither necessarily accurate nor not necessarily accurate, you have entered the realm of meaninglessness.

Nope

You just refuse to think outside of your box. The meaninglessness is inside your box. When you want to come out of your box, we'll be thrilled.

 

[quatona]

Nope

Learn logic 101.

 

[Tinyarch]

Learn logic 101.

You have no clue.

You live in a box of meaninglessness. You cannot understand. Thus, you claim illogic when in fact you cannot see or hear. I cannot heal you.

 

[Cis.jd]

So, ponds are "frequently" constructed by humans.

But music and dancing are not.

Music and Dancing is what you call art. There is a difference between art and design. Research.

Ok, sorry, I give up. Keep thinking whatever you want about those irrational atheists.

ok

 

[Cis.jd]

This is a dishonest portrayal of the position of methodological naturalists such as myself. We do not contend that "it just happened", as you attempt to characterise. For those phenomena that have a substantial evidential support, we rely upon that support. For those that don't, we make the honest assessment of "we don't know".

This explanation has been presented to you several times. For you to continue making your puerile mischaracterisation speaks volumes of your intellectual integrity.....

I get the "we don't know". For example, i don't know if ghosts exists.. i've heard a lot of stories from other people and may have encountered some of my own but i don't fully believe it. I don't understand how it is is possible and where these stories from others come from, and maybe it is provable but i don't know.

I'm not saying that you fully have to commit to "it just happened" but saying there was no intelligent designer and that the systems in this universe can't be seen as evidence is giving a fair chance to it just happened. The fact of the matter is, we should take a look at what has more weight.. the notion of it just happening is a lot smaller in basis than intelligent design. Its just completely inconceivable that everything in nature just happened when it has attributes that designed things do.

Did you research on the Deer overpopulation at Yellowstone, and also research on the behavior of animals such as Sea Turtles, or heard of Buffalo, have you ever wondered how a random stroke of luck known as evolution just gave these animals this sense of knowing what to do and who to be with? Why is it that every single thing in this universe all contribute to keep the cylce of life in this planet? And why is it that we can read these things through numbers --we can calculate and understand the behavior of forces of space to our own ecosystem? Yet it's less conceivable to believe in an intelligent designer?

"Ordered differently" how? As was explained already, the cycle would still work if we were either closer to or further from our sun by quite a wide margin. Our current position is not the only one that would permit the cycle to run.

If our planet wasn't titled nor the third planet from the sun do you think life would be stable in the planet? That is what i mean about order.

Nonsense. When Lemaitre was proposing his theory, he was acting as a scientist! He was drawing upon the evidence from the natural world, in order to arrive at his conclusion of an expanding universe that must have had a starting point to that expansion. Yes, I am sure that he would posit that all of this was 'kick started' by a god, but the terms of his theory do not require this supposition for the theory to be stated! A scientific theory finds its merits in its evidential support, not from the style of collar worn by the man expounding it!

Who said i denied him acting as a scientist? My point was that the majority of the top impacting studies and scientists all in intelligent designed, from before and after their proposal. When Lemaitre was proposing this he was being criticized for inserting religion into physics, because during this time most non-theistic scientists such as Einstein believed that the universe always existed which means it wasn't designed. The Big Bang was a theory that contended that, showing that the universe had a beginning so it created the question of "how it started".

Wrong again. It was Douglas Adams who so successfully satirised the position of you folk who have a conclusion desperately seeking a justification!

The Novel writer, he satirized the position of two of the top iconic scientists in history?

Rubbish. There are many, many structures in the world that do not follow the approximation gained from Fibonacci's famous number pattern.

Probably, the majority of the significant ones do though. Even snow flakes to the structure of your dna have it.

No, it is YOU who is in desperate need of some education! For starters, the ratio is not "perfect"....it is an approximation! You might as well attribute some mystical supernatural quality to Pi, because look......every circle formed seems to have that same ratio between its circumference and diameter.....gasp!

The Golden ratio is for aesthetics not for applying functionality and just math. According to the Greeks and every top design school, it the most PLEASING to the eye. This is why it is highly recommended to study. This is not by chance, but an actual skill for aesthetics that we get from nature.. unlike how your circle comment makes it look like.

And the ratio is NOT seen in all of nature. For example, the much touted Nautilus shell does NOT reflect the Golden Ratio.....it's a logarithmic scale!

How does this logarithmic spiral (Nautilus shell) not reflect the golden ratio?Every book about the Golden Ratio shows this as an example. It is a logarithmic scale but still well tuned in the Phi.

Oh well....that settles it! A 16th Century artist discovered the ratio in several structures of the human body....case closed!

I didn't say he discovered it, I said he made a study on it, which is an example to show you how serious artists and designers see this golden ratio. It is not some theory.

 

[Freodin]

Music and Dancing is what you call art. There is a difference between art and design. Research.

You are jumping wildly between different concepts, defining them only vaguely or even in contradicting ways.

Just a few posts back, you said:

...anything that has systems or functions, and language is a design.

So music and dancing do have "systems", "functions" and "language"... but now they are not designed?

Do you think that music and dancing "just accidentially happened"?


At some other posts, I tried to use language as something that is not designed. But here you define "design" as something that "has language". What is the language of language? Does the language of language need to be designed? What type of language does the language of language then have?`

No, your problem is that you are unable to distinguish "design" ("Purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object") from "non-design" ("accidentially happening")
You can only arbitrarily assign "purpose" to something, and just as arbitrarily conclude "design" from that.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

As you can see in my religious beliefs, i am Catholic all though i do consider myself open minded. My question for you atheists is if the existence of God is really what you care about most or is it deep down the question of whether or not he is worth any form attention (and honor/praise) at all?

The reason why i am asking this is because i am in this state of questioning myself. I don't know if i can ever believe that the universe wasn't intelligently design, i find it very hard to believe but a part of me is just wondering as to why his existence matters at this time?

With all this negativity and suffering that has gone on in this world for billions of years, do we really stop believing because of a lack of evidence or really because he is a "dead beat"?

I'm not Atheist or Christian . But believing is very hard at times. I just find it hard to believe people have an easy time believing everything.

 

[Cis.jd]

You are jumping wildly between different concepts, defining them only vaguely or even in contradicting ways.

No i'm not. I answered your question. There is a difference between art and design, and the following part of your post shows you really need to do some basic research on the subject.

So music and dancing do have "systems", "functions" and "language"... but now they are not designed?
Do you think that music and dancing "just accidentially happened"?

I never said music/dancing have a function, and design isn't the only thing that is intentional. Arts such as dancing, painting, playing an instrument, etc are not accident.

At some other posts, I tried to use language as something that is not designed. But here you define "design" as something that "has language". What is the language of language? Does the language of language need to be designed? What type of language does the language of language then have?`

What type of language is used for designing, is that what you are asking? If that is so, then Math is part of the language in designing. Language needs a mind to exist, i can't call it a design but it's a structure of mostly everything.

No, your problem is that you are unable to distinguish "design" ("Purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object") from "non-design" ("accidentially happening")
You can only arbitrarily assign "purpose" to something, and just as arbitrarily conclude "design" from that.

You actually showed how you don't know what design is, not just from the previous posts but also now with your inability to understand the difference between Art and Design, and this "what is language of a language" -- what are you talking about? You are trying way to hard to "refute" me yet can't even realize how you are trying your hardest to make sense out of your retorts, and sadly they don't.

 

[Freodin]

No i'm not. I answered your question. There is a difference between art and design, and the following part of your post shows you really need to do some basic research on the subject.

Some "basic research": (from the wiki)

"In a broader sense, the design is an applied art and engineering that integrate with technology."

"The boundaries between art and design are blurred, largely due to a range of applications both for the term 'art' and the term 'design'. Applied arts has been used as an umbrella term to define fields of industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, etc. The term 'decorative arts' is a traditional term used in historical discourses to describe craft objects, and also sits within the umbrella of applied arts. In graphic arts (2D image making that ranges from photography to illustration), the distinction is often made between fine art and commercial art, based on the context within which the work is produced and how it is traded.

I never said music/dancing have a function, and design isn't the only thing that is intentional. Arts such as dancing, painting, playing an instrument, etc are not accident.

Well, I do say that music/dancing/art have a function.

But we are closing in on the core of the problem here:
You have already admitted that there are structures that are not directly "designed".
Now you have added complex structures with "systems" and "language", but without "function". These also are not "designed".
We haven't been into your "hole in the ground" yet, but I am sure that we would quickly find out what is lacking to meet your definition of "design": "function".

But as I said in my last post:
"You can only arbitrarily assign "purpose" to something, and just as arbitrarily conclude "design" from that."

That's what you do. You, without any rational basis, decide that something has a "function" and what this "function" is, and declare it "design".

What type of language is used for designing, is that what you are asking? If that is so, then Math is part of the language in designing. Language needs a mind to exist, i can't call it a design but it's a structure of mostly everything.

So "language" is designed... but "language can't be called a design - it's structure of mostly everything".

Which is basically what I have been saying all the time about "inherent attributes". We are getting closer.

You actually showed how you don't know what design is, not just from the previous posts but also now with your inability to understand the difference between Art and Design...

What I put in quotation mark about "design" in the very post you cite here was a direct dictionary definition. It goes conform with the wiki article I linked in this post now, which uses definitions like "a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints" or "Design is planning to manufacture an object, system, component or structure."

This is exactly the way I use and used the term and concept of "design". If you think that this my - and all of my sources - usage is false... then educate me.

What is your professional definition as a professional designer of "design", and what is the difference between "Art" and "Design"?
(I guess the capitalization means something important.)

 

[Cis.jd]

Some "basic research": (from the wiki)
Well, I do say that music/dancing/art have a function.

Good job make it more certain that you need to do more research. You gave the definition of design, now research on the difference between Art and Design. Music and Dancing in general is categorized as art.

But we are closing in on the core of the problem here:
You have already admitted that there are structures that are not directly "designed".

One of the key differences between art and design is that art is focused on expression while design is for a specific purpose.

For example, is Michael Jackson an artist or a designer? The fact that you can't understand this really does show your inability to make an actual argument on what we are discussing.

Now you have added complex structures with "systems" and "language", but without "function". These also are not "designed".We haven't been into your "hole in the ground" yet, but I am sure that we would quickly find out what is lacking to meet your definition of "design": "function".

Dance and Music do are not categorized as design, you are already sounding ridiculous trying to force this in.

"You can only arbitrarily assign "purpose" to something, and just as arbitrarily conclude "design" from that."

That's what you do. You, without any rational basis, decide that something has a "function" and what this "function" is, and declare it "design".

But if the "purpose" is more toward the sake of expression than contribution or problem solving than it isn't a design.

So "language" is designed... but "language can't be called a design - it's structure of mostly everything".

Language isn't exactly a design it is a way to structure or create a design. You really are confused and just forcing arguments now. Please research first.

What I put in quotation mark about "design" in the very post you cite here was a direct dictionary definition. It goes conform with the wiki article I linked in this post now, which uses definitions like "a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints" or "Design is planning to manufacture an object, system, component or structure."

You really should research on the difference between art and design, your pulling of the definition of design doesn't make art and design of the same field. There are design fields that do require artistic skill but the subjects in general are different. You really don't get it and are just pulling things based on what you fail to understand.

What is your professional definition as a professional designer of "design", and what is the difference between "Art" and "Design"?(I guess the capitalization means something important.)

A designer is more of a problem solver. A designer thinks and uses certain elements such as shapes, text, color, sound, language, or whatever all for a specific purpose. An example is if i make a painting and i choose to color the grass red.. if i made this on the decision on showing my emotions or making a message of expressing a "tragic day at war", that is art. However if i color the grass red for the sake of catching attention to the viewer (as said in psychology: red and orange being the first two colors that a person sees) for a purpose such as advertising something, then it's a design.