A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Using what as the criterion?Creation "science" -- the exact opposite of science?Or real science?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I see a machine (called life) so I call it a machine!
The thread is about the creator - And if that's religious to you then that is the way it is.

So if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that we cannot really tell the difference between life and the well-defined processes of a machine. You go on to conclude that the truth must be beyond our understanding, because if we were simply the sum of mechanical processes and not at the core "magic" then you would get the sniffles and be really bummed.Well sorry to disappoint you, but I am pretty sure that reality does not reconfigure in order to avoid letting you down.

That thought was regards to God almighty - what are his limited / maximums. So as fools that we are, we're not in a good state for ever knowing things like that, that far up over our little heads.
God can not be measured by little man, for if we did, it would mean so little to anyone hearing it and not understanding it at all.Even the bible says it is impossible to know the ways of the universal creator from start to finish. Like measuring and never getting to the end just to get a final reading.

The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science.Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So?Intelligent design is supposed to be science.What does that have to do with ancient religious texts?(You didn't get the memo! ID is supposed to be science, not religion. You are supposed to pretend that the bible has no role in ID, nor does any other scripture or religious belief. We all know that's not true, but you have to pretend it is in order to help ID sneak back into the schools in the guise of science!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Thanks for those kind words of insight. Your logic answered your own question for me. Let me point out your insightful words of wisdom. If life has nothing supernatural about it, has nothing special, nothing greater then even bio-machinery on the molecular level. Then I truly have won this debate hands down. If man is non-supernatural, just a cleverly designed machine, programmed and built to "think" he is alive. This is what true modern science can test for, can understand, and is in the true realm of acceptable science theory today.Everyday science just to understand an everyday mechanical machine that would have us believe it is truly "alive".

If it is a given that everything generally considered "living" can be explained as a bio-machine then isn't your concept of "truly alive" a fiction? Should we be disappointed if the reality of things does not live up to this fiction, and if so, are you suggesting that our disappointment somehow alters this reality?Also, I strongly urge you to form complete sentences when posting. Roughly half of your sentences in the aforementioned post lack important parts, making it difficult to follow your meaning.

I don't really care. I don't expect the "hells angels" to feed the sick and the elderly, though it would be a great thing indeed.And I don't expect this ungodly system of things to Preach "righteousness", though we could all use some...Man is a machine, Nature is mechanical, and all life is a carefully disgusted illusion made from technological superiority.Wakeey, wakeey....

Well when you find out your "universe" is constructed on many layers of artificial "realities", from physical matter, all the way up to artificial "life" and this additional illusion of "nature" being natural.One starts to get a little rattled just thinking about it. Yes it does change your views on "realities". It's like winning a million dollars just to find out they've given you only fonny money.
Everything is seen differently, everything shows an up front implied purpose, yet the underlying functions speak of another reality with an artificially created one.

Hmm, not much I disagree with here. I think the only thing we probably disagree on is whether these living "machines" can develop and evolve via natural means with no supernatural intervention or the opposite.I also think where you going awry in your anthropomorphic reasoning is this: does life imitate human-made machines or is it really that human-made machines are created to imitate the structure and functions we see in nature and life around us? I would venture the latter.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Why would you conclude that those realities are artificial? The way I see it you must do one of two things to conclude a reality is artificial: Either find proof of its creation by another being, or find proof of the true reality. Without one of those things, even if you can describe life as a machine it does not prove that such a machine did not come about naturally.

Cars do not reproduce nor grow so they would fail those two requirements for life. It is certainly possible that man can make machines that will one day meet all of the requirements for life. Many a sci-fi author has tackled this problem, Asimov being a notable example. IMO, you could call these machines "life", but life that is different than our own.

Comparitively yes, man does resemble a machine. Nature does resemble a functioning machine. But, it's not because they are machines, it's because we humans designed our machines to resemble what we intuitively recognize as a functioning system...which is nature.So we design our machines to function as natural as possible and more and more this is where technology has gone to. Systems that look almost alive. As if they were living, thinking beings...but we know better than that because machines are designed and built into existance, and not part of a natural reproductive process.So, if, like you suggest, we are designed and built, we, like machines, would, by definition, not be alive. Nature itself would simply be a functioning program and would not really exist. Nothing would be real in any sense, sort of like The Matrix, and our relationship to this "creator" would be irrelevant.The problem with all of this is you can't prove any of it objectively. Also, it would be irrelevant to our existance. The evidence gathered from the reality we experience is the only thing that is useful to us. From medicine derived from biology/chemistry to space travel derived from physics equations, our life and existance is dependant on what we learn from objectively studying our experienced reality. How does thinking that we are designed and part of a program benefit our reality in any way?

---

"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

Why is it you always think intelligence must be SUPERNATURAL.
Are all creatures with some level of intelligence now to be called supernatural by "scientists".
Why is it you think we can not prove it was intelligently designed, just because you think intelligence must be supernatural and therefore impossible to prove?If you can't identify something intelligently designed then the problem is with you, not with the evidence, or the existence of the creator that designed it. This all starts with you more then it does with God almighty. If your a complete "X%#@$&*" then all the evidence in the whole universe is meaningless if the hearer can't understand what is being stated.So proving intelligent design is more an IQ test for you, then it is a problem of lack of evidence. If you can't understand the simplicity of the question so as to see the simplicity of the answer right in front of you. Then your the defect as regards logic and not the evidence.Well, of course not all persons have a logical argument, but this is not the case here is it. You just can't see so you think I am the blind one.