If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2015, 12:52 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2015 12:55 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Without any further information, are you able to infer that this was designed, and not a purely natural occurrence?

Another example is honeycombs.
[Image: hexagon.jpg]

Turns out it can be proven that the hexagonal shape of honeycomb cells maximize the compactness and minimizes the amount of wax required to form the bee hive. Did the bees have any intent to do this? Was an intelligent designer behind this? Of course not, they're bees, they don't do math.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 12:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Without any further information, are you able to infer that this was designed, and not a purely natural occurrence?

I don't think so. The Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Ratio for example appear everywhere in nature but it doesn't follow that they are the result of specific intent.

I don't agree with you. While I might avoid taking bets on the pictures you posted, I'd bet the bank, that the picture I posted, was of a formation that was intentionally designed. And I'm making this bet based solely on looking it.

You would avoid this bet though? Deeming it as too risky?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:37 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Why am I supposed to explain why or how I am contributing?

I'm just very unclear on what overall point you are trying to make. You seem to have an agenda but I'm not seeing what the goal is.

Are you trying to get an acknowledgement that theists think they have reasons for their beliefs?
That it is understandable that they accept those reasons?
That those reasons have validity?
Something else?
Consider

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2015 01:36 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't agree with you. While I might avoid taking bets on the pictures you posted, I'd bet the bank, that the picture I posted, was of a formation that was intentionally designed. And I'm making this bet based solely on looking it.

Would you say the same of the honeycomb? Looks every bit as engineered as your picture.

(11-06-2015 12:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You would avoid this bet though? Deeming it as too risky?

What bet? What risk? Some sort of perversion of Pascal's pussy wager?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 01:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 12:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't agree with you. While I might avoid taking bets on the pictures you posted, I'd bet the bank, that the picture I posted, was of a formation that was intentionally designed. And I'm making this bet based solely on looking it.

Would you say the same of the honeycomb? Looks every bit as engineered as your picture.

No, i'd probably avoid the bet on the honeycomb, but not on the elaborately ordered pictures of stones that I posted. The pattern and order of bricks on the walls, the particular symmetry and pattern of the circles, etc...all lead me to conclude with a great confidence that it was designed. I'm almost a hundred percent certain that it was designed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 01:59 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2015 02:07 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 01:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 01:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Would you say the same of the honeycomb? Looks every bit as engineered as your picture.

No, i'd probably avoid the bet on the honeycomb, but not on the elaborately ordered pictures of stones that I posted. The pattern and order of bricks on the walls, the particular symmetry and pattern of the circles, etc...all lead me to conclude with a great confidence that it was designed. I'm almost a hundred percent certain that it was designed.

Of course it was designed, we already stipulate that. It's a goddam brick patio after all. Who the fuck else would've built it. But why just on the face of it do you ascribe an intent to the bricks and not to the honeycomb. Side by side the honeycomb appears to be impeccable vs. the brick patio. I see all sorta imperfections in the brick patio that aren't evident in the honeycomb. Is it the imperfections in the brick patio which make you think implies intent?

[Image: brick.jpg][Image: hexagon.jpg]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 01:15 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 12:37 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Why am I supposed to explain why or how I am contributing?

I'm just very unclear on what overall point you are trying to make. You seem to have an agenda but I'm not seeing what the goal is.

Are you trying to get an acknowledgement that theists think they have reasons for their beliefs?
That it is understandable that they accept those reasons?
That those reasons have validity?
Something else?
Consider
I think it depends on the topic I am contributing to. I don't have an overall agenda other than to hang out.

When I put something out there, I hope to stimulate an exchange, hopefully civil. Hoping to pick up some new perspective or refresh an old one from the exchange.

I prefer threads where there are real different perspectives, rather than those that merely reinforce what most people here, including myself, already believe/disbelieve.

When you ask such questions, it comes across to me, like I should be following some sort of script. A party line. Something I associate with organized religion.

I don't believe that is your intention. But that is how it comes across to me. An undercurrent of intolerance which from our exchanges, I don't believe is your intention.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 01:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Of course it was designed, we already stipulate that. It's a goddam brick patio after all. Who the fuck else would've built it. But why just on the face of it do you ascribe an intent to the bricks and not to the honeycomb. Side by side the honeycomb appears to be impeccable vs. the brick patio. I see all sorta imperfections in the brick patio that aren't evident in the honeycomb. Is it the imperfections in the brick patio which make you think implies intent?

I don't think it's a matter of impeccability or what pattern is closer to perfection. In the case of the picture I posted, the factors that stand out are the sort of even surfacing of the stone, the juxtaposed patterns, the ordering of bricks along the wall, the circle pattern within a larger border. There's a certain order to structure, not particularly found when nature just shoots out consistently symmetrical shapes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 09:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 09:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are making an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity.
You don't know, nor can you seemingly imagine, how those could be the result of natural processes so you infer design.

But there is no evidence of design, there is only evidence of natural processes.

Is a claim, that the trail from nothingness producing matter, which can organize itself in such a way to create conscious self-aware creatures, who seek meaning, and moral distinctions, was purely unintentional, also an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity?

I'm wondering if the sword here works both ways, or only in relationship to appeals to intentionality?

Show evidence for the existence of the intender. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 10:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 09:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Step 1) evidence of designer

Step 2) evidence that logically connects said evidence to said designer

Notice your steps are questions about the designer, rather than merely about design. It's the distinction between inferring a robbery, and who the robber is.

You seem to be suggesting that design cannot be inferred unless we know who designed the item? Yet we can infer a robbery without knowing who the robber is.

You seem to be suggesting that design cannot be inferred from the item itself?

Those are not equivalent and it is appalling that you think they are.

We know that burglars exist. We have no evidence of a creator.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: