Evidence to expect given a designer

Isn't SETI an example of us looking for signs of intelligence rather than (by definition) human activity?If we found a signal expressing Pi to 100 decimal places in binary transmitted at the Hydrogen line frequency (or something like that) wouldn't that be clear evidence of intelligence?I don't know what the "specific method for detecting intelligence" being applied is but such a thing would seem like a clear sign of intelligence anyway - No?

OK. But if we detected the signal I have described it would seem to indicate an intelligent source wouldn't it? Sure. But that technology would be indicative of intelligence would it not? I have proposed a topic specifically about comparing the methods of SETI and IDists. If it gets promoted I hope to see what you have to say more fully there.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Unless something that "infinitely exists" has been observed your C would seem to be in the same category as your A here. No?

Well likewise we can't observe something coming from literally a state of nothing because if we are there to observe it something must already exist. So - again - your A and C are by the terms of your argument in the same category. Can I take it from this that you are happy for this infinite designer of your to exist only in the same sense that Pi can be said to exist?

Can you give an example of "something coming from nothing" that it would be possible for us to observe?

You constantly accuse me of trying to 'trip you up'. But I am simply asking you to justify how someting that "infinitely exists" is in any way observationally superior to your much maligned notion of "something from nothing". Will you at least accept that your "infinitely exists" isn't observationally supported? Have we ever observed anything that infinitely exists?Is it possible to drectly observe someting that "infinitely exsts"? Is it possible to directly observe "something from nothng" as you have defined it to be?If the answer to both these questions is "No" then your A and your C are in the same category by the terms of your very own argument are they not?

Observationally we have only ever observed finite things. Period.So if you are going to reject "something from nothing" on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed you should also reject the notion of infinite (in time) things on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed.Why the inconsistency? If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing. It means something has existed for all of time. Presumably not if "always existed" constitutes the finite time of 13.7 billion years or so.

Yes. That's my point. By the terms of your own argument there is a logical stalemate.You want to reject "something from nothing" on the basis that it has never been observed. Indeed given that we are "something" it is by definition impossible for us to ever observe a state of nothingness.But the exact same problem applies to "infinite in time". We have never observed this. And by virtue of the fact that we are finite in time it is impossible for us to ever observe this.So the two options you put forward are identical by the terms you yourself have also put forward. Yet you embrace one and reject the other and proclaim that you are making some sort of logical distinction rather than simply demonstrating your subjective bias for some "infinite in time" designer. Why doesn't something from nothing equally resolve this self appointed dilemma of yours? Unless you are suggesting that before humans joined the ontological party changes were occurring without duration you seem to be making a distinction without a difference.

You continue to talk yourself in circles trying to logically justify one evidentially baseless conclusion over another. Pardon? What is it that you think atomic clocks (for example) are measuring if not time? If I told you distance is a human invention that doesn't exist and that there is only separation between bodies you would (hopefully) point out that I am talking nonsense and making a distinction without a difference. You are doing the same. What we have observed is "something" (the observable universe and it's observable contents) changing in time. Remind me on what basis you are rejecting "something from nothing" again? By the terms of your own flawed argument - If everything we have ever observed (including time itself) has a beginning and is not "infinite in time" then the only logical conclusion is that all things have a beginning and are not infinite in time. In what way is our mathematical concept of nothing limited in such a way that it logically precludes "something from nothing"....? Apply the same flawed logic to to the equally unobserved "infinite in time" and you'll end up with the opposite conclusion to the one you want.You are being inconsistent and selective in your rejection of that which hasn't been observed.

Can you give an example of the speed of light being surpassed because the "Earth isn't a vacuum".....?Frankly you are so confused as to be almost incoherent here...

Huh? Relativity tells us that there is no absolute time. That all time measurements depend on the observers frame of reference. The truth of this has nothing to do with moving at faster than light speed. And there is nothing in relativity to suggest the "alternate time-space frame" of the many worlds sort that you seem to be implying. Alternate universe theories are a product of quantum theory. Not relativity. At the risk of confusing the issue.... It is possible for particles to move faster than light does in a medium. Cherenkov radiation is an example of such. But this has nothing to do with alternative realities and suchlike. You don't seem to know any physics..... If your ultimate point is that time is not simply some sort of subjectively derived man-made invention but instead and actual physical property of objective observable reality - Then - Yes.But your argument for that point doesn't make any sense at all.

OK. Credit to you for fessing up.My advice is to take part in some threads where you can contribute on firmer ground before diving head first into less familiar territory. EvC can be quite unforgiving on those who leap into discussions saying things that are demonstrably wrong or which don't make any sense. But it's also a great place to learn and to find out how much you really understand the things you think you understand by being forced to defend a given position based on evidence and argument.Don't be put off by your initial foray.