The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

If the possibility of a designer is all you're after, then so long as there isn't empirical evidence against it, anything remains possible.But the possibility of a designer doesn't result in evidence for a desgner, anymore than the possibility of life existing in Alpha-Centauri result in evidence for life in Alpha-Centauri. It isn't "proof" of anything, it just makes the case for it being possible. Are you saying that a human fossil in the Cambrian era wouldn't falsify the ToE?If I told you that you won't find anything under my bed, and you find something, doesn't that falsify my claim?Likewise if it is stated that you won't find human fossils in the Cambrian era, and you do, doesn't that falsify the claim?- Oni

So long as there is no evidence pointing to the contrary, anything is possible. This is only logical, and, it allows for design to remain a possibility.But possibilities alone do not constitute proof, and that was my only point, as you seem to agree. I don't, my logic doesn't point me to design. I don't see anything as a "choice."But, I was just pointing out to you that a possibility doesn't make it proof. All well and good, but it didn't answer the questions I asked you. They were just yes or no questions.Are you saying that a human fossil in the Cambrian era wouldn't falsify the ToE?If I told you that you won't find anything under my bed, and you find something, doesn't that falsify my claim?Likewise if it is stated that you won't find human fossils in the Cambrian era, and you do, doesn't that falsify the claim?- Oni

That's all well and good, but my point is only that so long as evidence to the contrary isn't available, anything remains possible.However, you do go further than you should when you claim that we as a human race have reached the limit. The only thing you can say is that you have reached your limit. You can't speak for anyone else. Logic is subjective, even if you think it's the right logical conclusion, it's still based on subjectivity. YOU can't imagine it, you can't speak for anyone elses imagination.And history has shown us that your statement is just wrong. There was a time when it couldn't be imagined how the stars stayed in the sky, how the planets moved, what caused diseases, it couldn't even be imagined how crops grew without sacrifices. The human imagination is limited, so I wouldn't trust it too much.If your argument is that you can't imagine it, then that is a very weak argument. Good, then the ToE can be falsified. If a human fossil is found in the Cambrian era, as you agree, it falsifies the prediction made by the ToE that it wouldn't be found. I wasn't talking about design, just the ToE. Maybe that's what confused you. I only wanted to show you how the ToE would be falsified.- Oni

A geocentric model for the solar system is reasonable, teachable, and once very much accepted as the only model - we now know how wrong that was. Proof is required, not just logic. It has proven time and again to lead to false conclusions.- Oni

No one can make an absolute statement that there is no ID. What we have said is that things happen naturally without evidence of an ID. However, it is possible that one still exists.So what is the evidence for design? You answer it here: So you believe order is evidence for design.But the problem is that your definition for order... ...is the same as the definition for something designed. Specifically when you say "demonstartable and useful purpose, or even apparent purpose." That is not in any definition you will find defining "order" - (see Merriam-Webster) - what you're describing is design.So when asked for evidence of design, you say "order." And when asked for your definition of order, you describe design. That is textbook circular reasoning, and a clear logical fallacy.However, if you see the actual definition of order: " a regular or harmonious arrangement" - nothing in that suggests design or designer. Nature arranges regularly and harmoniously, without purpose.So you have confused and mixed up both words to describe the same thing. Of course it makes logical sense to you that order is evidence for design, in your mind they are the same thing.I think you need to fix that before anymore debating can be done.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm doing it just to piss you off. - Oni

- Bertot wishes! Plus he couldn't handle the intense level of THC that would hit his vains if he and I merged as one.- Oni

As my post points out, the only reason your logic points to order establishing design is that you use the same definition for order and design.You are clearly confused.Order doesn't have purpose, designs do. If you define order as something arranged with a purpose, then you haven't defined order at all, but are instead describing something designed.It is that word confusion that has pushed you into a logical fallacy.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

No one has disputed this. And again, that is because you continue to confuse the word order and design. Order is NOT defined as having purpose, and you don't get to change that definition to whatever you want it to be.This is the basis for your circular reasoning. Not at all, it is based on the common use and definition of the two words. Actually, no, I like your take on it: Nature constructed the eye through an evolutionary processes of selection to sense light for the purpose of sight (in a variety of different ways found throughout nature.) --- We're in agreement.However, the points being disputed aren't about purpose or function, it's about your example of design in nature.You stated that the evidence for design is order. You went on to define order as something arranged for a purpose. And the problem continues to be that your definition of order is not correct, you are actually defining something designed, which does have a purpose.So there in lies the logical fallacy of circular reasoning based on an incorrect definition of the word order.Define order correctly and you'll find that it doesn't logically conclude design.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

That is the purpose to life AFTER it has begun. If, as you claim, life is designed, then there was a purpose prior to it being designed. Just as the drill had a purpose before it was designed.This is when you invoke the god of the Bible and his purpose, but you know that that is a faith-based belief and not actual evidence.So, from a naturalistic perspective, there is only purpose AFTER life has begun, and no evidence for purpose prior. From a religious perspective, there is no evidence of purpose, only faith in a purpose described in the tenets within the religion.Conclusion: In both cases, there is no actual evidence for purpose.- Oni

Seems like you've now changed your original stance that order is evidence for design to, order AND purpose are evidence for design. Well, of course they are, that IS the definition for design.But order alone isn't evidence for design, you need purpose, which you have not demonstated there to be any, as Modulous has pointed out.- Oni

Sure you did, when you gave your definition of order.See: No, you said purpose was demonstratable, and useful, and clearly visible.That was how you logically concluded design, because order produced a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose.Are you now saying that order does NOT produced a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose? I keep seeing you write that, but I have no clue what matter eternal is. Can you explain that?However, you do need to demonstrate evidence for design in this thread. And you did. It was order, which you define as: "properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose."Now, if you wish to redefine that better, to the actual definition of order, and remove the "demonstratable purpose" part, do so.But, note that properties arranged in a harmonious fashion is in no way evidence for design. A design needs purpose, you actually do need to show evidence of purpose for order to be evidence of design. If not, it's just order. Then do you concede that you have no evidence for design? Because that's exactly what we all have been saying. We have, we told you there was no evidence, that you couldn't show us evidence for design.And you have apparently admitted that you can't.In your words: "I cannot show you design."So I guess this debate is over.- Oni

I get what you're saying.You take the available evidence that science has been able to produce in fields like cosmology, biology and chemistry (that you don't understand) and from that, conclude that it's logical and reasonable to suggest it was designed.Scientist, however, take the same available evidence that science has been able to produce in fields like cosmology, biology and chemistry (that they DO understand) and conclude nothing about the origin of the universe.So you see, you're the only one trying to establish a valid model for the origin of existence based on limited evidence. And, since logical conclusions are limited to the available evidence, it is clear that you are limited as to what you can conclude about the origin of existence.Our side doesn't do that. We recognize the limits and accept them as such, rendering no conclusions about the origin of existence.It seems to me that logically, no one should be making ANY claims about the origin of existence.- Oni

And yet you couldn't provide Mod with the clear and visible (and don't forget, demonstratable) purpose for life. How can you not see the obvious circular reasoning in what you wrote? GeezYou can dispute the purpose of a designed item, but you can't dispute the order that the designed item was placed in - therefore concluding design is valid?No shit?!You already state it was a designed item - OF COURSE the conclusion is design!

Its definitely a lack of comprehension on your part, I get that now.Example: No, you provided him with the purpose OF life, just like with the eye. The purpose OF life is to live, the purpose OF the eye is to see.But the purpose FOR life, is different. That is why Mod gave you the example of the drill. The purpose FOR the drill was, humans needed to drill holes and designed a tool capable of that. The purpose OF the drill is to drill holes.The purpose OF life is to live. The purpose FOR life is what?And I'll take you ignoring the part about order as you recognizing your circular reasoning.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.