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
16-06-2015, 09:16 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2015 09:22 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 08:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Step 1) prove the designer exists

Step 2) find evidence of design from the designer that logically connects said evidence to said designer.


All you're saying here is, that in order for you to conclude that something is designed the designer must be proven to exists, and that particular design is connect to this particular designer.

But of course you likely wouldn't ask this of someone inferring their house was robbed, that he would have to:

Step 1.) Prove the robber exists

Step 2.) connect the robbery to this particular robber.

None of these are steps required to infer a robbery.

Imagine a man who lives in an isolated area, after some global catastrophe, in which he is led to believe he is the last remaining survivor. He comes home one day to find that a bunch of his items are missing. He concludes that he has been robbed. By concluding that he had been robbed, he recognizes that there must be others around, capable of robbing him.

Notice none of your required steps are present.

He neither has to prove the robber exists, to infer a robbery. Nor does he have to connect a particular robber to this particular robbery either to draw this inference.

The steps your propose are just your own personal requirements. It's like a man who requires a birth certificate, photographs, or videos to conclude that any historical person has ever existed.

Your inability to recognize this, a point made several times to you already, is part of the problem here. You accuse me of misunderstanding you, while at the same time not understanding this.

Quote:Or to put it another way, scientific explanations can't work without mechanisms that can be demonstrated plausible.

Science is methodological, not ontological. This would be like providing what it believes would be the best unintentional explanation, the most plausible unintentional explanation. Like claiming something was just the unintentional recipient of some astronomical odds. It doesn't require this explanation to be all that believable, just the best it's methodological limitations can come up with.

A claim that the ontological naturalism is true, is no more a scientific claim, than a teleological view is true. Science is limited in making such a leap.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 09:23 AM
If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 08:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Step 1) prove the designer exists

Step 2) find evidence of design from the designer that logically connects said evidence to said designer.


All your saying here is, that in order for you to conclude that something is designed the designer must be proven to exists, and that particular design is connect to this particular designer.

But of course you likely wouldn't ask this of someone inferring their house was robbed, that he would have to:

Step 1.) Prove the robber exists

Step 2.) connect the robbery to this particular robber.

None of these are steps required to infer a robbery.

Imagine a man who lives in an isolated area, after some global catastrophe, in which he is led to believe he is the last remaining survivor. He comes home one day to find that a bunch of his items are missing. He concludes that he has been robbed. By concluding that he had been robbed, he recognizes that there must be others around, capable of robbing him.

Notice none of your required steps are present.

He neither has to prove the robber exists, to infer a robbery. Nor does he have to connect a particular robber to this particular robbery either to draw this inference.

The steps your propose are just your own personal requirements. It's like a man who requires a birth certificate, photographs, or videos to conclude that any historical person has ever existed.

Your inability to recognize this, a point made several times to you already, is part of the problem here. You accuse me of misunderstanding you, while at the same time not understanding this.

Quote:Or to put it another way, scientific explanations can't work without mechanisms that can be demonstrated plausible.

Science is methodological, not ontological. This would be like providing what it believes would be the best unintentional explanation, the most plausible unintentional explanation. Like claiming something was just the unintentional recipient of some astronomical odds. It doesn't require this explanation to be all that believable, just the best it's methodological limitations can come up with.

A claim that the ontological naturalism is true, is no more a scientific claim, than a teleological view is true. Science is limited in making such a leap.

No. No. No. No.

A mechanism (cause) can't be invoked to explain evidence, if it isn't first demonstrated to exist/be plausible/logically consistent with reality.

Your robber example has been shredded numerous times.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 09:24 AM
If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
A theist telling a scientist what science is and isn't. Cute Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
16-06-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your robber example has been shredded numerous times.

Shred it then, or provide the post that did shred the points raised by it. Since you claim it has been done numerously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 08:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here, if you actually care about learning, reread this:

It is even simpler when it comes to the idea of intelligent design.

Step 1) prove the designer exists

Step 2) find evidence of design from the designer that logically connects said evidence to said designer

You can't find evidence of something (your explanatory cause) without evidence that the cause exists. Otherwise you could claim that anything from your imagination is capable of explaining your "evidence" for it.

Or to put it another way, scientific explanations can't work without mechanisms that can be demonstrated plausible.

I'll give him one better.

Let's assume that an intelligent designer exists. How did it organize matter in such a way to produce conscious, self aware creatures? "God works in mysterious ways." has absolutely zero explanatory or predictive power. In fact it is counterproductive because it implies that this question is somehow beyond our capacity to understand and comprehend. Whereas the question "'How did matter organize itself in such a way to produce conscious, self aware creatures?" is one that is not beyond our capacity to understand and comprehend. And not only are we well on our way to answering this question through neuroscience, we will create and embody consciousness and self-awareness in our machines in short order. Then there will be an intelligent designer and it will be us.

Your queasiness that this couldn't have just happened is no more grounds for a valid argument than "I can't imagine what it means to not exist" is grounds for an afterlife.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-06-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  A theist telling a scientist what science is and isn't. Cute Drinking Beverage

One can be a professional scientist, and have never taken a course or studied the philosophy of science. They can go their entire lives without knowing the difference between ontological and methodical naturalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 09:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  A theist telling a scientist what science is and isn't. Cute Drinking Beverage

One can be a professional scientist, and have never taken a course or studied the philosophy of science. They can go their entire lives without knowing the difference between ontological and methodical naturalism.

Still trying to tell me what science is and isn't while using fallacious examples.

By your logic (not needing to demonstrate the plausibility of a mechanism in order to use it for explanation of "evidence" believed to derive from it), the surface of the Earth is as likely to move because of the existence of molemen who live in the deep Earth and use a series of conveyor belts to move the plates of the Earth as it is to being driven by convection of heat and the effects of ridge push and slab pull.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'll give him one better.

Let's assume that an intelligent designer exists. How did it organize matter in such a way to produce conscious, self aware creatures? "God works in mysterious ways." has absolutely zero explanatory or predictive power.

Again. Inferring a robbery, doesn't require that I know how the robber was able to break into my house, and take all my stuff.

Inferring intentionality has the same explanatory capacity as claiming it was a fluke. You don't particularly recognize the alternative here to intentionally, what the alternative explanation would amount to, that matter having these capacities, that gave rise to such creatures, is a fluke. The less likely you are to believe it's a fluke, the more likely you are to believe in intentionality.

Quote:In fact it is counterproductive because it implies that this question is somehow beyond our capacity to understand and comprehend. Whereas the question "'How did matter organize itself in such a way to produce conscious, self aware creatures?" is one that is not beyond our capacity to understand and comprehend. And not only are we well on our way to answering this question through neuroscience, we will create and embody consciousness and self-awareness in our machines in short order. Then there will be an intelligent designer and it will be us.

While you may be able to map out the history of how matter organized itself in such a way, the answer to why matter has the capacities to do this, is one in which you can only answer by saying "it just does". It didn't have to, it just did. That it was able to do so, is just a fluke, it could of just as easily produced a series of zombies but it didn't. That the answer to why there is something rather than nothing, is that "there just is".

I think some unbelievers recognize how these aspect play into the hands of teleological beliefs, and often the ones that make the best arguments against this, are ones that argue that consciousness is an illusion, that we are just "moist robots". That we are pretty much zombies. What they likely are not aware of is how these beliefs rather than stemming from their intellect, are products of their own ideological commitments, their temperaments masquerading as their intellect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(15-06-2015 10:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 02:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  What is your point? What is it that you think is designed that a naturalist does not?

Well the main point, is to combat the accusation that one needs to know who or what designed something to infer design. We can look at a picture of a stone structure, without knowing much of anything else and infer design.

My secondary points would be that this process, is to great deal intuitively inferred, hence why when we try to articulate why we assume certain rock formations are designed we have a hard time articulating those reasons. These intuitions are shaped by our collective perceptions of designed and non-designed things.

In fact when we see those naturally formed rock formations presented here, those square crystals, or those trails created by sailing stones, the images are jarring, in way that looking upon other natural items, like mundane rocks, and mounds of sand don't. There's something that clicks in assuming these items are created intentionally, even though they are not.

What I always found interesting among a sort of diehard atheists is a sort of downplaying and denial of this basic human intuitions, and this sense of jarringness . The seem consciously aware of it, when presented with rock formations, in those that are naturally created, but strickingly so. But attempt to seemingly deny the jarringness of matter organizing itself in such a way to produce conscious, self aware creatures, with moral intuitions, and creative capacities,.

While they may believe this a natural, and unintentional process like sailing stones, they seem unable to relate, or recognize why others don’t particularly find this all that believable, that sense of absurdity in regards to ontological naturalism, which should be entirely understandable. But this often gets downplayed or denied, for no other apparent reasons, then perhaps ideological commitments.
I like you, don't think one necessarily needs a putative designer to infer it. I agree that you can do that based on intuition. I have no quarrel with that.

Here is the catch though. This can only a be tentative position subject to validation or invalidation. It should eventually be confirmed or invalidated by independent evidence. At least in principle.

Maybe the designer is eventually observed. New things are observed based on that inference. Or some natural explanation found that invalidates it.

If the confirmation or invalidation doesn't happen, then it's value is neither here nor there.

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
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
16-06-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  By your logic (not needing to demonstrate the plausibility of a mechanism in order to use it for explanation of "evidence" believed to derive from it), the surface of the Earth is as likely to move because of the existence of molemen who live in the deep Earth and use a series of conveyor belts to move the plates of the Earth as it is to being driven by convection of heat and the effects of ridge push and slab pull.

Not really. Why would this movement, even if it was a product of intentionality, be credited to molemen who live deep in the earth? There's no particular relationship between the meaning of molmen, or creatures who lived deep in the earth, and the supposed intentional movement of the plates of the earth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: