Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 122 of 396 (499668)
02-19-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Huntard
02-19-2009 12:49 PM


Just a bump
Hi Huntard,
Name ONE thing that undeniably points to design,
I'd like to predict that you'll get complexity as the one thing that points to design, for a response. Which you will then argue, as per the thread topic, that if complexity is the marker for design then the designer is complex as well and would also require a designer. To which you will get a response that the designer is not subjected to the same conditions because said designer just so happens to be outside of our natural laws. To which you'll respond that that is complete bullshit and not an answer at all. To which Bertot will respond by making some lame joke in an attempt to sound cool and hip - probably about your name or default pic - when really he has no argument other than incredulity and assertions about nature - and he's old and very, very, very lame.
Also, if the designer designed everything then not only does he/she design complex things but also non-complex things. That would confuse things a bit about complexity being the one thing that you could point to that requires design. It would mean that non-complex things would also require design, so there really is no ONE thing that can be pointed to. If the designer designed everything then nothing can be signaled out.
But, I highley doubt you'll get an admitance from Bertot that he was wrong. You will get some kind of shitty joke though, which offends me on a personal level.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 12:49 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2009 7:30 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 124 by Huntard, posted 02-20-2009 1:23 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:33 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 137 of 396 (499787)
02-20-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 10:18 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
Yes, it is still theoretical because you have no way of knowing if the "reality" you percieve is actually real. When you look at anything you don't see atoms or subatomic particles, their existance would be unknown to you, so how can you say for sure that you understand what you perceive to be the actual fundamental functions of the universe? You can't, hence it is a theoretical conclusion.
Actually you have answered your own question. The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design. If the universe atually exists and it has laws it follows, that is real, therefore the conclusion that it may have very well have been designed IS AS REAL. If as you suggest "real possibilittes have some form of verifiable evidence, that points to them as being possibilities, then the phisical universe certainly falls within that category. Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted.
Would you care to deal with these contradictory statements?
First you say we are not looking for god, just "design". Then you say there is nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a "designer".
I thought you said we weren't looking for the designer(god)...?
Which is it...?
What position are you searching for verfiale evidence for, for design or the existence of God.
You are the one that keeps trying to slip god in, as with your "designer" comment above.
If for design, it should be wrapped up in the only two real possibilities against the physical reality of the universe and its laws.
Lets stick with design then. First, what "laws" are you talking about that aren't the reactions of interactions with other things? Be specific. Second, designed for what?
If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions.
But I thought you said we weren't looking for the "designer"(god)...?
Again, you contradict yourself. If it's design, then theoretically it can be possible. If it's the design(er) then absolutely not, not in any way. The design(er) would violate our known reality.
AND no matter how much you try to dodge this question, who created the designer?
From your other post:
How can a very well thought out and well delivered joke such as mine always are, offend, a dirty and no talent comedian, ha ha.
I think you missed the point about the jokes being lame, not funny and hacky. I'm only offended at your shitty attempts to be humorous. And, if you consider me a comedian you established that I have a talent, whether you enjoy it or not. Seems like the contradictions keep on coming!
Rodeny Dangerfield you not boy.
Thats a good thing 'cause he's fucking dead.
You know, "That lady is not two-faced, if she were she wouldnt wear that one", "Call me when you have no class", Now thats comedy feakshow.
Yeah in the Catskills during the 50's. It's 2009 you lame ass, get with the times pops.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 10:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2009 9:22 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 143 of 396 (499934)
02-21-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Dawn Bertot
02-21-2009 9:22 AM


I will give civility a try...for admins sake.
Right back where we started from, back to the insanity of questioing reality itself
I did not question reality I questioned your perception of it. Since nothing can be declaired as absolute, it will remain theorietical.
If you are going to muse philosophically about reality you must understand certain rules about doing that.
The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer, either are possible until you get to the laws of entropy or the existence of something out of nothing principle, or matter that appears to be finite in its character sustaining and bringing itself into exsistence itself principle. Design however, by itself could be either, or, on the surface. The theist however, is warrented in conclusing a DESIGNER initially.
The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth.
The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence. Its simply that the theist is more than justified in drwing such conclusions and is in no way delusional or mystical as Dawkins and others would suggest. He simply an agry little man with an agenda. Besides that he is a really poor on the spot debater.
None of this was an answer for your contradictions in the other post.
You said:
Bertot writes:
The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design.
Followed by:
Bertot writes:
Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted.
Stile did not admit anything about a "design(er)", he said theoretical there was a possibility for "design", period. You added "design(er)" to it. Even, like you said, if you proved things were designed, the design(er) would still be imaginative and unwarrented and theoretical because, as you say, design can still be caused by natural process.
Would you like to deal with those contradicting statements above or not?
Reactions of interactions to bring about a specific SAME consistent result
Same results no matter what?! Care to think that through carefully? (hint: think QM)
And could you be specific...please?
  • Does the Earth orbit the Sun because it was "designed" to do so, or is it doing so because matter found itself trapped in an orbit around the Sun?
  • Was the Earth "designed" for life, or did life arrise due to the Earth being at the precise distance from it's host Sun?
  • Was the Earth "designed" to be this far from the Sun, or is it the result of the Earths mass?
  • Was the Sun "designed" at that specific size so that it would go Red Giant and consume the Earth in the process ending all life, or is it's size the result of it's core mass/energy?
Just a few more points if you should be so kind as to indulge me:
The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer
Could you give a brief explanation of what the "design principle" is? And how would you show design happened naturally?
The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth.
I think the point we are all making against you is that there is NO obvious design in nature. You have not shown were design is. All we see is adaptive organisms changing as per their enviromental needs. Where do you see design?
The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence.
But you do not doubt that gravity exists, or atoms, or gases, or electromegnetic waves, etc. Why do we place doubt on design? Could it be that it is impossible to show?
The reactions of a designed motor vehicle with its other parts constituting interactions is design whether someone put it togoether or it happened naturally.
A motor is designed for a specific purpose. It does not adapt to different environments. It does not alter it's functions to suit new conditions. It serves one specific purpose. It clearly is designed with one application in mind.
Could you say the same about organisms who have evolved for 3.5 billion years, who have gone through thousands of morphological changes, who have continously been driven to evolve by a randomly changing environment?
What specific purpose were organisms designed for? To stay alive at all cost? Is that it? Is that what you mean by design?
How could you point to design specifics when the organism is constantly changing?
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2009 9:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 9:04 AM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024