Conclusive evidence for Design!


#1

[quote="Sair, post:1149, topic:290386"]

  1. An accidental universe is not a credible basis for order, value, purpose, meaning or a rational existence.

This has not been demonstrated - merely asserted.

[/quote]

There is no evidence that accidents have ever provided such a basis nor does any reasonable person rely on accidents to make important decisions.

[quote]3. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational...

Why would we necessarily expect this? It may be less likely for order to result from accidental occurrences, but it is hardly impossible. And not all natural, unintended events are, strictly speaking, accidental - there's a difference between cause-and-effect and pure chance.
[/quote]

All natural, unintended events occur within a fundamentally orderly system. An accidental universe has no such framework.

[quote]4. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.

Why does perception of fact presuppose reason? Surely it only presupposes some degree of sensory accuracy and ability to cross-reference between experiences.
[/quote]

The perception of physical objects is different from the "perception" of abstract, intangible facts. Cross-references by animals are not the result of abstract insight but conditioned responses.

[quote]5. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.

This assumes that the only possibility is a foundational construction of knowledge. In reality, most people do not work as Descartes assumed, and build knowledge in a bottom-up fashion from one or two unassailable axioms - rather, it is constructed as a broad-ranging web of mutually-supportive scaffolding. And maybe there is no 'ultimate' explanation for the 'power' of reason - maybe it's just an ongoing process of construction.
[/quote]

Intellectual constructions cannot be achieved without insight or understanding.

[quote]6. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.

Facts are direct representations of existing circumstances; logic is based upon the observable operations of reality. Neither would exist without mind-external bases.
[/quote]

Facts refer not only to existing circumstances but also to past, present and future events, situations and relations, logical truths and mathematical values . Logic is based on the abstract principles of identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle.

Without the mind there would be no knowledge of facts or logical truths - and the mind itself is the source of all interpreted information.

[quote]7. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.

Yet ironically, it is science that has done the most to refute the possibility of supernatural design.
[/quote]

Science has done nothing to refute Design because it is restricted to physical entities, events and situations.

[quote]8. Design implies that reason is a fundamental reality.

Again, an unproblematic statement in itself, but there is no evidence that reason is fundamental to the universe - at least, not the definition of reason you have previously elucidated.
[/quote]

Order, value, purpose, meaning, logical truths and mathematical values all presuppose a rational foundation.

[quote]9. Materialism claims that reason is a product of unreasoning processes.

Yes. And?
[/quote]

It is a clearly inadequate explanation which has led many people - including the atheist Professor Thomas Nagel - to doubt the truth of materialism.

[quote]10. The materialist is determined to externalise all internal experience.

As Daniel Dennett said, if you make yourself small enough, you can externalise anything.
[/quote]

If you externalise everything you are not only undermining your own conclusion but annihilating yourself! Where do you stop on the slippery slope to nihilism?


#2

There is no evidence that accidents have ever provided such a basis nor does any reasonable person rely on accidents to make important decisions.

[quote]3. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational…

Why would we necessarily expect this? It may be less likely for order to result from accidental occurrences, but it is hardly impossible. And not all natural, unintended events are, strictly speaking, accidental - there’s a difference between cause-and-effect and pure chance.
[/quote]

All natural, unintended events occur within a fundamentally orderly system. An accidental universe has no such framework.

  1. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.
    Why does perception of fact presuppose reason? Surely it only presupposes some degree of sensory accuracy and ability to cross-reference between experiences.

The perception of physical objects is different from the “perception” of abstract, intangible facts. Cross-references by animals are not the result of abstract insight but conditioned responses.

[quote]5. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.

This assumes that the only possibility is a foundational construction of knowledge. In reality, most people do not work as Descartes assumed, and build knowledge in a bottom-up fashion from one or two unassailable axioms - rather, it is constructed as a broad-ranging web of mutually-supportive scaffolding. And maybe there is no ‘ultimate’ explanation for the ‘power’ of reason - maybe it’s just an ongoing process of construction.
[/quote]

Intellectual constructions cannot be achieved without insight or understanding.

[quote]6. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.

Facts are direct representations of existing circumstances; logic is based upon the observable operations of reality. Neither would exist without mind-external bases.
[/quote]

Facts refer not only to existing circumstances but also to past, present and future events, situations and relations, logical truths and mathematical values . Logic is based on the abstract principles of identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle.

Without the mind there would be no knowledge of facts or logical truths - and the mind itself is the source of all interpreted information.

[quote]7. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.

Yet ironically, it is science that has done the most to refute the possibility of supernatural design.
[/quote]

Science cannot refute Design because it is restricted to physical entities, events and situations.

[quote]8. Design implies that reason is a fundamental reality.

Again, an unproblematic statement in itself, but there is no evidence that reason is fundamental to the universe - at least, not the definition of reason you have previously elucidated.
[/quote]

Order, value, purpose, meaning, logical truths and mathematical values all presuppose a rational foundation.

  1. Materialism claims that reason is a product of unreasoning processes.
    Yes. And?

It is a clearly inadequate explanation which has led many people - including the atheist Professor Thomas Nagel - to doubt the truth of materialism.

[quote]10. The materialist is determined to externalise all internal experience.

As Daniel Dennett said, if you make yourself small enough, you can externalise anything.
[/quote]

If you externalise everything you are not only undermining your own conclusion but annihilating yourself! Where do you stop on the slippery slope to nihilism?


#3

double post


#4

I think it's awesome when theists refer to their god thing as "intelligent".........If you really think about it....well...let's just say that - in and of itself - is enough for me to get a little tickled.


#5

Will this stupid topic never die out? Without a proper epistemological method to decide if something is natural **or **designed, the whole question is nonsensical. As a matter of fact, here is one question to the proponenets of "design": "Is there anything natural (undesinged)?" If you say "yes", then comes the second one: "how do you know?". If you say "no", then your whole proposition is ridiculous.


#6

[quote="tabycat, post:3, topic:302704"]
double post

[/quote]

Haha! And we know that adding two zeros is still a zero.


#7

[quote="Trurl, post:5, topic:302704"]
Will this stupid topic never die out? Without a proper epistemological method to decide if something is natural **or **designed, the whole question is nonsensical. As a matter of fact, here is one question to the proponenets of "design": "Is there anything natural (undesinged)?" If you say "yes", then comes the second one: "how do you know?". If you say "no", then your whole proposition is ridiculous.

[/quote]

And, ultimately, that is the point - without a frame of reference, without any evidence whatsoever of the actual existence of any designer, short of the bare assertion that complex systems "must" be the result of design, there is no way to compare. Unless there arises such evidence, independently of the assumption of design that gets attached to complex systems, or unless it can be explained by the design proponents exactly how the world would be different from what it is were it not designed, then as you say, we have no epistemological method for establishing design over undirected physical processes. At least we have seen the latter in action!


#8

[quote="Sair, post:7, topic:302704"]
...the bare assertion that complex systems "must" be the result of design...

[/quote]

Moreover, just which system is "complex"?

Complexity is not an inherent attribute of a system, it is merely the measure of knowledge and understanding (or lack of them) of the observer. To an uneducated person everything looks designed (as we can see it all the time) but that only reflects on their inadequate knowledge, not the phenomena which they "think" (is this actually a proper word to use here?) was "designed".


#9

[quote="Trurl, post:8, topic:302704"]
Moreover, just which system is "complex"?

Complexity is not an inherent attribute of a system, it is merely the measure of knowledge and understanding (or lack of them) of the observer. To an uneducated person everything looks designed (as we can see it all the time) but that only reflects on their inadequate knowledge, not the phenomena which they "think" (is this actually a proper word to use here?) was "designed".

[/quote]

That's a really good point, actually. And some things that seem deceptively simple from our perspective are actually the result of a great many processes all interacting in a way that produces a particular outcome. In the past, I have used the example of a snowflake as a demonstration of how order and apparent complexity can result from unthinking, undirected processes, and have been dismissively told that this is such a simple process that it cannot be compared to something like human consciousness. It is probably the case that there are more particulars involved in producing consciousness, but as you say, maybe its apparent complexity is just a reflection of the imperfection of our own understanding and the incompleteness of our knowledge in this regard.


#10

The snowflake example is excellent.

There is a very interesting mathematical example that extremely simple “rules” will create absolutely mind-boggling complexity. I am talking about John Conway’s “Game of life”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway’s_Game_of_Life (I am sure that someone will point out that the game itself was “designed”- showing their lack of comprehension.)


#11

[quote="tabycat, post:3, topic:302704"]
double post

[/quote]

That's to make you double up with laughter! We need some humour when confronted with the dreary negativism of non-Designers. It makes you wonder what purpose they see in life - apart from attempting to prove their lives are purposeless... ;)


#12

No one has ever explained why there has been constant development towards greater complexity since the Big Bang…

No doubt that is attributed to purposeless events - like everything else.


#13

[quote="Trurl, post:8, topic:302704"]
Moreover, just which system is "complex"?

Complexity is not an inherent attribute of a system, it is merely the measure of knowledge and understanding (or lack of them) of the observer. To an uneducated person everything looks designed (as we can see it all the time) but that only reflects on their inadequate knowledge, not the phenomena which they "think" (is this actually a proper word to use here?) was "designed".

[/quote]

To a simpleton everything looks purposeless but that only reflects their superficial interpretation of reality solely in terms of atomic energy.


#14

[quote="tonyrey, post:13, topic:302704"]
To a simpleton everything looks purposeless but that only reflects their superficial interpretation of reality solely in terms of atomic energy.

[/quote]

I would suggest that to a simpleton, anything that appears to make life easier, or to meet some particular desire, would be interpreted as having been designed to do so, by a being that had said simpleton's needs and desires in mind. You've surely read of Douglas Adams's puddle...


#15

[quote="Trurl, post:5, topic:302704"]
Will this stupid topic never die out? Without a proper epistemological method to decide if something is natural **or **designed, the whole question is nonsensical. As a matter of fact, here is one question to the proponenets of "design": "Is there anything natural (undesinged)?" If you say "yes", then comes the second one: "how do you know?". If you say "no", then your whole proposition is ridiculous.

[/quote]

"undesinged" is the most appropriate description of the nonsensical - and unnatural - interpretation of reality as purposeless - which undermines the entire process of reasoning!


#16

[quote="tonyrey, post:12, topic:302704"]
No one has ever explained why there has been constant development towards greater complexity since the Big Bang......

No doubt that is attributed to purposeless events - like everything else.

[/quote]

No-one has ever explained why any consistent development towards greater complexity - if, indeed, there has been such development, which is far from a foregone conclusion - is any indication of intelligent design!


#17

[quote="Sair, post:16, topic:302704"]
No-one has ever explained why any consistent development towards greater complexity - if, indeed, there has been such development, which is far from a foregone conclusion - is any indication of intelligent design!

[/quote]

The slightest knowledge of science disposes of that assertion...

The purposeless dog is determined to continue to chase its purposeless tail!


#18

[quote="Trurl, post:10, topic:302704"]
The snowflake example is excellent.

There is a very interesting mathematical example that extremely simple "rules" will create absolutely mind-boggling complexity. I am talking about John Conway's "Game of life". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life (I am sure that someone will point out that the game itself was "designed"- showing their lack of comprehension.)

[/quote]

I first read about the Life world in Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves, but immediately I could see how it was possible for complexity to arise from simple, local rules (as, I believe, Dawkins also pointed out in a few of his books). The point, as you imply, is not that the rules were designed with any outcome in mind, but that the rules just are - thanks to the limited behavioural possibilities of certain entities - and complexity is the natural result.


#19

[quote="Sair, post:16, topic:302704"]
No-one has ever explained why any consistent development towards greater complexity - if, indeed, there has been such development, which is far from a foregone conclusion - is any indication of intelligent design!

[/quote]

No need to feed the troll... it just gives him a new opportunity to regurgitate his nonsense. Observe, that no matter how hard you try to get an answer to distinguish between "designed" and "natural", you will never get a meaningful answer. Or if there is anything natural in the first place...


#20

I detect a raw nerve! A descent to abuse is not a valid substitute for a rational argument…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.