Why ... (2)

[Davian]

Davian I am not finding the posts. I know that I left two unanswered, I believe two anyway.

There was this one, about a gap that you want your god to fill:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7771588-87/#post64150989

And this one, where I ask if you can phrase your claims in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis, something objectively testable:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7771549-75/#post64122001

The third was the request for your criteria for determining design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am still unfamiliar with this "materialistic" worldview that you keep referring to.

The view that everything in and including the universe itself is made up of natural materials, can be explained using only those materials, and that those natural materials are all there are.

Appearance of design is not necessarily evidence of design. That is why I ask, by what testable criteria do you determine design? Testable, that is, outside of your worldview.

So what would be the definition of something that has only the appearance of design rather than actual design? In fact, how would you define designed?

However, prominent physicists have determined that the laws of physics and the actual odds of all the "coincidences" of so many variables coming together at the right time and the right way and the nature of the laws themselves are improbable to a extremely high degree. They have mathematically tested the probability and it comes out unlikely that it could have occurred by mere accident.

Odds that cannot be calculated in the absence of access to other universes, correct?

I believe that they did calculate it. However, we do not have evidence of other universes and so to claim other universes again refutes materialism, due to the fact that even if there were other universes, we could never know. We could never test them to see what laws and makeup they would have.

Where does this "naturalistic" worldview make the presupposition that the universe was designed, as yours does?

I didn't claim they did.

Do you see the problem with your worldview-based arguments yet?

Not in the least. Where do you see a problem with them.

To summarize, you believe the universe is designed because you believe it to be so?

It could be equally said that you don't believe it was designed just because you believe it to be so.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's like asking for evidence that gravity always sucks. Codes are a product of an intelligent mind.

Please show that codes are always the product of an intelligent mind.

 

[Smidlee]

Please show that codes are always the product of an intelligent mind.

I admit it would be hard for me to prove Dawkin's book "the God Delusion" was intelligent designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I admit it would be hard for me to prove Dawkin's book "the God Delusion" was intelligent designed.

Good one.

 

[Davian]

The view that everything in and including the universe itself is made up of natural materials, can be explained using only those materials, and that those natural materials are all there are.

That is not me, then.

So what would be the definition of something that has only the appearance of design rather than actual design? In fact, how would you define designed?

lol, not my problem. It is not my claim, it is yours.

The point of my asking for your testable criteria for "design" is to see if you have a workable definition of what you mean by 'design. I haven't seen it yet.

However, prominent physicists have determined that the laws of physics and the actual odds of all the "coincidences" of so many variables coming together at the right time and the right way and the nature of the laws themselves are improbable to a extremely high degree. They have mathematically tested the probability and it comes out unlikely that it could have occurred by mere accident.

Show that math.

I believe that they did calculate it. However, we do not have evidence of other universes and so to claim other universes again refutes materialism, due to the fact that even if there were other universes, we could never know. We could never test them to see what laws and makeup they would have.

It only 'refutes' your version of materialism.

With no other universes for comparison, it does render your claim of design being supported by the appearance of design unfalsifiable - of no significance.

I didn't claim they did.

Yes you did. Here you said "While it is understood that there is no proof that God is behind this design or whether or not it is The Christian God, it does prove that the design of the universe and those governing principles fit within the worldview of the Christian consistently but fail in the naturalistic worldview."
Your statement presupposes design, then you have the "naturalistic" worldview fail to support a presupposition that it does not support.

You have made a straw-man argument.

Not in the least. Where do you see a problem with them.

It is so very hard to stay out of the straw. See above.

It could be equally said that you don't believe it was designed just because you believe it to be so.

Not at all. What I believe at this moment is irrelevant, and I am not making the claim that the universe is not designed, or is solely the result of naturalistic forces. I have not seen a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, or even testable criteria, for any claims of "design", including yours.

Do you or do you not have testable criteria for your claim of the universe being designed?

 

[Davian]

I admit it would be hard for me to prove Dawkin's book "the God Delusion" was intelligent designed.

You would have to read it, for a start.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just realized I missed this post. Ok for the evidence.

From the link: Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

So, no evidence is to be found other than the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota. No reference to the first UCA other than the pattern we see in nature.

You are running from the evidence again. The unity of life is evidence for a universal common ancestor even if it is not evidence for the lifeforms that came before it.

Yes, you keep saying that but when I show you supportive evidence of my position you will not accept it.

That would require you to present supportive evidence, which you haven't.

The point is that you will accept elements of ToE that are not in
evidence,

A universal common ancestor is evidenced.

Not true. Like I said there are separate kinds in Evolutionary classification. You can't say that there are no separate kinds when in fact there are even within the system you defend.

All species are joined by common ancestors. There are no separate kinds. Separate kinds is a creationist term for species that do not share a common ancestor.

I can give supportive evidence.

Then do it.

Again, not true. I went back and reread the entire thread. You are the only one that has specified separately created kinds. Post #202, #217 #222. There may be more but I don't remember and didn't write them down.

You used the term "separate kinds" in this very thread which is a creationist term for separately created kinds.

Kinds are living organisms. The kinds that are listed in the Creation Narrative are after previous kinds.

Where in the Bible does it say this?

Interestingly enough, those pre-cambrian fossils just recently were analyzed and it was found that they are not marine life at all. I wasn't aware of this either due to the newness of the study but it is one more thing that substantiates that plant life was on land prior to even the Cambrian Explosion.

None of those are trees or grasses like it says in the Bible.

In the court of law, in murder trials, there is what is called circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence is a form of circumstantial evidence.

In many cases, it is very compelling evidence, such as finding the suspect's fingerprints in the blood of the victim on the knife that killed the victim. Would you just ignore this evidence if you were a juror?

No, I didn't. There is no counterargument. I am saying that universal common decent is man's explanation for the processes that God designed.

What evidence do you have that God designed it?

Really, you have no evidence for the first life form, you have no evidence for how DNA first arose, you have no evidence of how many of the cellular mechanisms even work. How in the world would you presume that you know that life was not created and designed.

I presume no such thing. You are projecting again. Not everyone has presuppositions like you do.

 

[Loudmouth]

I admit it would be hard for me to prove Dawkin's book "the God Delusion" was intelligent designed.

Show that DNA was intelligently designed.

 

[Smidlee]

Show that DNA was intelligently designed.

The ability of detecting something as intelligent design is something built-in. I doubt an ape could detect design. Thus it is the product of the (human) mind just like colors and sound. Some people are blind and some are deaf and some can't detect intelligent design in a code.

 

[lasthero]

The ability of detecting something as intelligent design is something built-in. I doubt an ape could detect design. Thus it is the product of the (human) mind just like colors and sound. Some people are blind and some are deaf and some can't detect intelligent design in a code.

So, in other words, you have absolutely no idea how to detect it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The ability of detecting something as intelligent design is something built-in.

Evidence please.

I doubt an ape could detect design. Thus it is the product of the (human) mind just like colors and sound. Some people are blind and some are deaf and some can't detect intelligent design in a code.

The human mind sees things that aren't there all of the time. How do you know that it isn't a false detection?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not me, then.

What is you then?

lol, not my problem. It is not my claim, it is yours.

Actually it was your claim. You said that appearance of design did not necessarily mean actual design. It would seem the burden of proof rests on you. You must tell me why the appearance of design does not necessitate actual design.

The point of my asking for your testable criteria for "design" is to see if you have a workable definition of what you mean by 'design. I haven't seen it yet.

It seems that since you are the one that has a problem with the distinction of design. Physicists and scientists have no problem acknowledging the appearance of design, I have no problem distinguishing the appearance of design. I don't see them coming up with a definition of what they think constitutes design.

I think that a simple definition is sometimes too simplistic, I could say that design is a plan set forth by an intelligent agent that has purpose which is directed and assisted by working elements within the system/plan that would be shown to be so precise as to eliminate the natural occurrence of such elements. It could be said in the secular worldview that design is a broad spectrum of united conditions that simultaneously work within a system that defies known naturalistic explanation requiring a theory to contain the extraordinary precise fine tuning of the universe.

Of course a definition of design is a difficult thing to narrow down, which seems reasonable when in fact, intelligent design even at the human level is so hard to define.

Show that math.

I looked for the actual math for what I was referring to and did not find it. Lee Smolin did the mathematical equations for probability in his book The Life of the Cosmos, the math is in the notes but I can't find it online. But this is what it says:
".... just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. ..... The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229."

It only 'refutes' your version of materialism.

Actually since you do not adhere to the empirical materialistic view as you stated above you set yourself apart from that, but in reality, it is a very common view and one in which Loudmouth said he identifies with.

With no other universes for comparison, it does render your claim of design being supported by the appearance of design unfalsifiable - of no significance.

No, actually. Without the evidence of any other universes, we are confined to the one we have. If you are to allow for other universes it then makes your stance equally unfalsifiable. It is no more reasonable to put off the reason for our fine tuning to untestable hypothesis's as you say it is for God. Regardless, when taking into consideration of what consistently flows within the reality of the universe and that which does not; the Christian worldview is consistent with the "appearance" of design whereas the naturalist has inconsistency within their worldview.

Yes you did. Here you said "While it is understood that there is no proof that God is behind this design or whether or not it is The Christian God, it does prove that the design of the universe and those governing principles fit within the worldview of the Christian consistently but fail in the naturalistic worldview."
Your statement presupposes design, then you have the "naturalistic" worldview fail to support a presupposition that it does not support.

No. You have misconstrued my argument.

Davian said: Where does this "naturalistic" worldview make the presupposition that the universe was designed, as yours does?
​

I said: I didn't claim they did.

The naturalists do not presuppose the design of the universe and I never said they did. Also, I do presuppose design, but I do not use the failure of the opposing view as support for my claim. I am comparing one view to the other. It would be a straw man if I was falsely claiming that the naturalistic worldview claims actual design by intelligent design rather than the appearance of design that they have absolutely acknowledged. They do support the appearance of design which I have shown repeatedly by quotes they have made.

You have made a straw-man argument.

I have shown that it is not.

It is so very hard to stay out of the straw. See above.

Nope. See above.

Not at all. What I believe at this moment is irrelevant, and I am not making the claim that the universe is not designed, or is solely the result of naturalistic forces. I have not seen a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, or even testable criteria, for any claims of "design", including yours.

Ok. However, if you are not inclined to share your position in the discussion it seems to be unwarranted to ask me for mine.

Do you or do you not have testable criteria for your claim of the universe being designed?

If we can show through testing how precise and uncommonly balanced the perimeters are for the universe, and the mathematical elegance of it, we can exemplify the intelligence behind it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The human mind sees things that aren't there all of the time. How do you know that it isn't a false detection?

The design in the universe is not due to false detection, the precise equations that are used to represent the forces of nature and all the elements prove the fine tuning that shows design.

 

[Loudmouth]

The design in the universe is not due to false detection, the precise equations that are used to represent the forces of nature and all the elements prove the fine tuning that shows design.

How do they prove it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are running from the evidence again. The unity of life is evidence for a universal common ancestor even if it is not evidence for the lifeforms that came before it.

The unity of life could be from something other than a universal common ancestor. The three domains are not ancestral to each other. So we have no other reason for a UCA other than to explain the way these complex domains came about. Common decent can work without a UCA just on the three domains of life. So once again, there is no evidence for a UCA.

That would require you to present supportive evidence, which you haven't.

I have provided as much as you have for the UCA. I have evidence across the spectrum in all areas of Science that supports my position as well.

A universal common ancestor is evidenced.

No it isn't. Common decent is consistent with the three domains of life, by themselves. It doesn't point to a UCA. The only reason you need a UCA is to explain the complexity for the three domains.

All species are joined by common ancestors. There are no separate kinds. Separate kinds is a creationist term for species that do not share a common ancestor.

All species are joined by common design. Common design explains all aspects of ToE more accurately. Common design would explain why there is a need for divergent evolution, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, punctuated equilibrium, and Horizontal transfer.

Then do it.

I have you ignored it.

You used the term "separate kinds" in this very thread which is a creationist term for separately created kinds.

I asked you specifically if there were kinds of organisms that were separate in the make up of the Nested Hierarchy. That is what I was talking about. It has been shown in this thread as well that there are indeed separate organisms, such as fish, birds, mammals. There are separate organisms that make up the three domains of life. So don't try to tell me that there is any problem with the kinds, which after their kinds in the Biblical narrative and that it doesn't fit within the systematic organization of life.

Where in the Bible does it say this?

Are you even reading what I am writing? I have repeatedly posted it.

And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

See kinds come after its kind.

None of those are trees or grasses like it says in the Bible.

True.

In many cases, it is very compelling evidence, such as finding the suspect's fingerprints in the blood of the victim on the knife that killed the victim. Would you just ignore this evidence if you were a juror?

A juror would not be testifying.

What evidence do you have that God designed it?

I said I had supportive evidence that He designed it.

I presume no such thing. You are projecting again. Not everyone has presuppositions like you do.

Oh yes, everyone has presuppositions. Everyone.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do they prove it?

The mathematical improbability.

 

[lasthero]

The mathematical improbability.

The probability for a past event is 1:1.

 

[Loudmouth]

The mathematical improbability.

Let's see the math.

 

[Loudmouth]

The unity of life could be from something other than a universal common ancestor.

Just like the fingerprints at a crime scene could be from leprechauns.

The three domains are not ancestral to each other.

My cousins are not ancestral to me, but we do share a common ancestor. This is further evidenced by the DNA that we share.

So we have no other reason for a UCA other than to explain the way these complex domains came about.

Why would we need to explain away anything?

Common decent can work without a UCA just on the three domains of life.

Doesn't change the fact that the evidence points to universal common descent.

So once again, there is no evidence for a UCA.

Yes, there is. The evidence is the metabolic and genetic systems shared by all life.

I have provided as much as you have for the UCA. I have evidence across the spectrum in all areas of Science that supports my position as well.

You are still refusing to present the evidence.

No it isn't. Common decent is consistent with the three domains of life, by themselves. It doesn't point to a UCA.

The features shared by the three domains of life points to a common ancestor for those three domains.

The only reason you need a UCA is to explain the complexity for the three domains.

False. It is there to explain the shared features of the three domains of life.

All species are joined by common design. Common design explains all aspects of ToE more accurately.

How is design different than evolution?

I have you ignored it.

I have given you yet another chance to present the evidence and you have failed to do so.

I asked you specifically if there were kinds of organisms that were separate in the make up of the Nested Hierarchy. That is what I was talking about. It has been shown in this thread as well that there are indeed separate organisms, such as fish, birds, mammals.

Those are all vertebrates. They are all joined by a common vertebrate ancestor.

Are you even reading what I am writing? I have repeatedly posted it.

And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

See kinds come after its kind.

It has grasses and trees in different kinds. How do you explain this? Why doesn't it say that all eukaryotes came after it's kind?

I said I had supportive evidence that He designed it.

So what is that evidence?

Oh yes, everyone has presuppositions. Everyone.

You are projecting again.