Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
46 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,613 Year: 16,649/19,786 Month: 774/2,598 Week: 20/251 Day: 20/23 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
DWIII
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 157 of 373 (645984)
01-01-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."

A + B = C
"C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.

Doesn't "B" contradict "A"? If it does, you can't very well have both.


Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources.

Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.

Basically you are saying that DNA is an artifact. It's a rather poor sort of artifact that doesn't last with time, requires nearly continual maintenance, and is subject to some level of degradation every time it is replicated.

An artifact presumes a manufacturing process behind it. Is this manufacturing process no longer operative any where? If DNA requires information, and there are no longer any sources of fresh information to infuse it, how long do you suppose life itself will last? Could we ourselves (Homo sapiens), acting as intelligent designers, create the required information to allow life to exist indefinitely?


Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.

So why don't we observe the same sets of parameters which would make life possible on all other planets? Earth was designed and no other planet was?


Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.

Scientific observation H: The universe itself displays a highly specified nature as described by many astronomers and astrophysicists.

D + E + F + G + H = I
"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.

So now the whole universe is designed as well. Would this not include every single object contained in the universe? So why doesn't life exist everywhere in the universe? If the universe is fine-tuned for life, it's a poor sort of fine-tuning to allow life to exist on one planet only, out of an entire universe. Other than happening to be infested with life, why is Earth so privileged?

Edited by DWIII, : fixed dbl-neg


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:00 AM DWIII has responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 176 of 373 (646114)
01-03-2012 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Just being real
01-02-2012 1:00 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


Doesn't "B" contradict "A"? If it does, you can't very well have both.

Not necessarily. Only if you assume that prior to the beginning of the universe there was nothing. And that's the big problem isn't it?

In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't assume their was a "prior" to the beginning of the universe. In fact, I wouldn't even go so far as to assume that there was a "beginning" in the first place.

What's the point of this, anyway? Could not an omnipotent intelligent designer design a beginningless universe, if he so chose?


So why don't we observe the same sets of parameters which would make life possible on all other planets? Earth was designed and no other planet was?

Well gee... I don't know. Do we have to no all the mind of the designer in order to detect design?

No, but why stop at just "detecting design"? Surely, from the nature of the so-called "design", you could (at least tentatively) infer lots lots more.


So why doesn't life exist everywhere in the universe?

This is a question that can only invoke speculation. Again I wouldn't presume to know the mind of the designer. However personally whenever I hear this question I kind of get this image in my head of a small child following his daddy into a huge mansion he just commissioned to be built. The child looks at his dad and asks, why such a big house with nobody else in here? My speculation is that Dad just built the house and hasn't moved in yet.

Let's talk real bonā fidē design, for a change. Just off the top of my head, here's a list of phenomena which I personally would consider evidence of design with respect to various alleged artifacts:


  • A preliminary sketch prior to the creation of some specific thing
  • Patent applications, or a statement of legal right to be the sole manufacturer of said type of thing
  • Proof-of-concept simplified designs as part of a research program
  • Test models of increasing functionality
  • Competing designs eliminated for reasons of lower efficiency
  • Blueprints, a list of components, &/or instructions for assembly
  • A record of qualification tests with associated recommended tweaks
  • Protected trade secrets
  • Inbuilt safety features (with the intended user in mind)
  • Instruction manuals &/or warnings against misuse or abuse
  • Clearly-labelled control mechanisms
  • Brand-name identification
  • Storage facilities for available but currently inactive designed objects
  • Advertising
  • Dates of manufacture, price tags, unique serial numbers, etc.

Does all that sound overly-anthropocentric? It should; it's what humans do (at least some of those things, if not most) when designing something. Would you say that the intelligent designer wouldn't do it that way? Are you quite sure? Design (as humans practice it) is far far more than one end product; it's the entire process that goes behind it. Were we made in the image of the intelligent designer, or not? If you could simply wave a magic wand and make computers instantly poof into existence, how could you call it "design"? You didn't really design anything, did you?

Be honest now(!), you are not really all that interested in looking for evidence of a designer; you are instead wishfully touting "evidence" of a daddy who builds a huge mansion in the sky and promises to provide for all of your selfish needs so you don't have to.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:00 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM DWIII has responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 236 of 373 (647073)
01-08-2012 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't assume their was a "prior" to the beginning of the universe. In fact, I wouldn't even go so far as to assume that there was a "beginning" in the first place.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there is no evidence that something existed prior to the formation of the universe. However there is ample evidence to suggest that the universe did have a beginning. Therefore when we are trying to speculate about that beginning, we must use the only frame of reference available. What do we observe now? We must take that observation and utilize it to postulate the most logical conclusions of what happened then. I wouldn't look at what we observe now and say, "Gee I guess the universe poofed in to existence from nothing all by itself." There is nothing observable today that one can use to make such an illogical conclusion.

Agreed, "the universe poofed in to existence from nothing all by itself" is an illogical conclusion. That's why serious cosmologists infer no such thing. (So as not to unnecessarily de-rail the topic, please refer to my take on this in "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God" (Message 6) for the details.)


If you could simply wave a magic wand and make computers instantly poof into existence, how could you call it "design"? You didn't really design anything, did you?

Lol. Since the existence of a computer must already exist in order for me to know to wave my wand and create one, then the actual device necessarily would have to have been designed and I would merely be "poofing" a replicated copy. If you are inferring that that was how Christians believe God created things, then you are sadly mistaken.

I wouldn't go about imputing that kind of simplistic belief to every believer. And yet, serious believers (such as you) infer some unknown and ultimately unknowable sort of design process instead of "magical poofing", in spite of the fact that your holy writ indicates otherwise when it formulaicly says "And God said Let there be x, and there was x" in the vast majority of the "designer's" creative acts. Is it any wonder then that such simplistic notions abound among run-of-the-mill believers and the unbelievers who put up with them?


We believe that He could design every facet of something all in His head at instantaneous speeds. His sketch, his "paton," his research, his tests, his blueprints, all took place in his mind in an instant of time. From the smallest proton up to the inter workings of the heart and eyes, ears, and everything else.

That is an intriguing notion, that the "omnipotent and omniscient designer" could effortlessly run multiple simulations of potential creations entirely in his own mind. This itself opens a rather large can of worms. I put it to you that your "omniscient designer" would have no problem in perfectly simulating, entirely in his mind (instantaneously or not), an infinite number of different universes with all sorts of initial conditions. I also put it to you that any sentient beings that happen to reside in such a simulation could never know (on their own) that they are existing in one such simulation, and would have no basis for thinking (from their point of view) that their universe was any less than real.

So, given the unlimited mind of your postulated "omniscient designer", how could you possibly know that our universe in particular may be nothing more than one of a vast number of simulated partially-failed "test models"? You couldn't.


But now we have strayed away from talking about what I can prove, and gone to talking about what I believe. Something I think no one in this thread really cares about.

Since your only support is unfalsifiable assertions, your "proof" (so far) utterly fails. All that is left is the real-world evidences which (contrary to your beliefs) point in the opposite direction.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:33 AM DWIII has responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 268 of 373 (647122)
01-08-2012 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 5:39 AM


Dr Adequate writes:


So was it that a fat hippo sat on Thumbelina's umbrella, or did an intelligently designed computer crunch out a configuration based on intelligently programmed algorithms?

Who designed the antenna?

Does a tiny computer program based solely on the mindless repeated application of trial and error qualify as a person?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 5:39 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 283 of 373 (647158)
01-08-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Just being real
01-08-2012 6:33 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


Since your only support is unfalsifiable assertions, your "proof" (so far) utterly fails. All that is left is the real-world evidences which (contrary to your beliefs) point in the opposite direction.

Excuse me? Unfalsifiable? Lets look again and see if that is true.

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing one case of something coming from nothing.)

It's not apparent what is meant by "nothing" in this context. Does empty space qualify as nothing? Quantum mechanics postulates a seething foam of virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence, and has been indirectly verified with such experiments as the Casimir effect. Quantum mechanics is (so far) a vastly successful model of physical reality.

If, instead, "nothingness" is some state of affairs which cannot by definition be experienced, then the notion of no thing "coming from nothing" is inherently unfalsifiable.

Here's a little sauce for the gander: Scientific observation A-prime. No thing has ever been observed in the act of being created from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing just one case of somebody creating something else out of nothing in violation of the conservation of mass-energy; conjuring tricks or Genesis 1:1 notwithstanding.)


Scientific observation F: The 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. (Can be falsified by observing one other case of another planetary system with the existence of native life)

You are treading very thin ground here. I doubt that the general concept of intelligent design would be in any way falsified by a successful detection of alien life; on the contrary, it could conceivably bolster it. All it would really falsify is your presumed arrogance that life on this one planet must be the Pinnacle of All Creation.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:33 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM DWIII has not yet responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 339 of 373 (648358)
01-15-2012 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Just being real
01-11-2012 12:40 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


If we are going to assume based on observation that everything that has ever existed is finite because that is all we have ever observed, then how do we rationalize this mathematically? Finite things can not logically or mathematically also be infinite.

Not necessarily. See Wikipedia: Convergent series.


If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.

Here is an interesting comment for you. Suppose "time" is not a "something" but merely a human measurement to measure change. To test this notion, consider what if right at this moment every thing in the universe just stopped changing. All protons and electrons, all planets and stars, if everything just became frozen in one position. If this were to happen, then would there still be time? I think if this were to happen we would say, "Time stopped." Therefore if time is merely a construct of human invention to measure change, then we can abstractly (from our point of view) say that there has always been time and always will be time. Of course if there were ever time in which absolutely nothing existed (to change) then practically speaking there would be no time. But that is not the point.

Time is a human invention... a tool if you will, invented to think abstractly. I can think about yesterday because of the "tool" we use called time. And with that same tool I can think about the minutes before there was a universe, even though perhaps there was nothing changing then. So then there is nothing illogical about humans using their tool called time to think about the moments before the universe began.

There is also nothing illogical about thinking about Adam's biological mother. Or the intelligent designer's designer, for that matter.

Anyway, how many "moments before the universe began" are we talking about here? How long (in duration) are these individual moments? Do they remain in a strictly linear sequence even though they are not physically part of our universe?

I find it interesting that you are committed to the idea that (A) every moment in time must have an associated "prior moment", much in the same way that (B) every day (24 hour period) in time must have a corresponding "yesterday". Strangely enough, general relativity as applied to cosmology allows for A even if B is false, provided that time itself is not quantized.

You say that our (presumably finite) universe requires an infinite something temporaneously prior to it in order to exist. What if our (presumably finite) universe already has that feature built into it? Wouldn't there then be no need for an additional stretch of time previous to it?

Edited by DWIII, : fixed typo


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019