Does Ocum's Razor apply to this argument? Wouldn't the simplest answer be that everything starts at a molecular level?

But that's not what most atheists are doing.

On the contrary they are attempting to sell the ideat that happenstance should be the default conclusion until we have evidence to show otherwise. So thy claim that the burden of proof lies only on the conjecture of design, whilst the conjecture of happenstance doesn't need any evidence.

That's the point that I'm arguing against. That utterly wrong.

They try to hold out the idea that it's somehow more credible to assume happenstance than to assume intelligent design. But that's a false notion. My whole argument all along was simply based on the fact that if we assume happenstance, it fails. Happenstance doesn't explain a thing, because the things that would be required for happenstance just aren't in place.

A conclusion of happenstance must also have 'evidence' as to why that conclusion makes sense. In the case of this universe happenstance doesn't make sense!

So why treat it like as if it should be the 'default' conclusion?

But yet every conclusion you have listed here fits as the argument against intelligent design too. So who wins?

The thing about proof is it can be revealed, and each new layer of the onion has shown to be naturally mechanistic so far, why should the next layer contain god?

Shoku,

First, I appreciate your humor, you are quite funny.





If there is an 'original' designer, then we may all be that because we came from that. (But you will probably make a joke about that concept too.)

If you don't understand or can't make any sense out of what I am trying to say, well, I can understand that.

I say that I 'know' because I feel connected to a living universe. I say that I "don't know" it for a fact because everyone knows that this kind of thing cannot be proven and I am tired of people demanding scientific proof when it cannot be provided.

This age old and worn out argument about spirituality and 'God' is just getting boring and tiresome. If a person doesn't want to speculate about the possibilities then why even get involved in the conversation in the first place?

Since there is no proof one way or another, I just have to go with my feelings on it.

And as Abra says, if you do not accept evidence or the possibility of a designer, what is your 'default' premise? Are you just going to sit there in limbo waiting for someone to prove it to you one way or another or do you presume some default conclusion? If so, where is your evidence for that??

http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/astronomy/origins.htm

Interesting read on the origin of the universe.

OOps double post

Because Billy says that it's all just 'natural.'

Or aliens.

I just saw a show on the history channel that said that the reason for the "patterns", in this case the coincidence that the same pattern of our solar system is in the buildings of one of the clusters of the pyramids and Stone Henge (sp) were a reason for the belief that ancient aliens existed.

I don't discount it but the proof is not very convincing to me. Just like the proof of intelligent design is not very convincing. Both seem to have only the premise that the people who see it are convinced and that is all the proof given. Not enough for me.

And again this is a matter of what one is willing to accept as evidence.

Now I feel fairly certain that I have evidence that some other’s don’t have, simply because I have experienced things that some other’s haven’t experienced. So it is a little presumptuous to say that evidence doesn’t exist. The most that can be reasonably said is that one hasn’t seen evidence that one considers acceptable.



Additionally, that reference to “elevating” is a bit vague.As far as I have seen, no one has elevated it to anything beyond “belief”.

So are you objecting to others believing as they choose???

That’s the surest way I know of to create conflict.

There is no conflict until someone objects.

It is the act of objecting that creates conflict.

Now if your whole purpose is to create conflict, then go ahead and object.

Just don’t forget where the source of any resulting conflict lies.

Because you say so? Is that supposed to logically counter the argument I gave? Show me.



The cause is the artist. How is that unknown? The only thing straw-based here are your graspings. That example showed cause and design without having order.

The statement is false.



The art example was not me re-iterating your argument in a way which misrepresented your original argument. It was my demonstration of a real life contradiction to your absolute claim. Your attachment to your belief is causing you to miss the obviousness of this.

This example is not a design being shown. It shows order and known cause without design, which refutes your absolute claim. It was an orderly arrangement of pennies coming from a known cause - namely me dropping them - without being designed. It shows coincidental/random/accidental order. It happens. It is a fact. The only conclusion that we can draw from that fact is that all things which seem orderly to us are not necessarily designed even if we know the cause.

No amount of beautiful theory trumps observation sky.



I showed exactly how those two claims fail to be logical conclusions.

Show me the necessary distinction which makes a difference between what I presented and what you claimed. Strawman arguments can be demonstrated as such.



Really?

Tell me how that could possibly be true. Below are both of those claims. Each one specifically states "with known cause."



How are both of these not dependent upon knowing the cause? If that is true remove those terms. Here is what you would get.

1.) All design has order.

2.) All order has design.

I showed why that is false. You need to know the source and be able to determine purpose, intent, and reason in order to determine whether or not something is a design. Order alone is insufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion.

Yes I guess that is my problem. I have evidence and some experiences that they don't have and I can't discount them. I have experienced my own 'unified field' and it has a completely different kind of space-time than this one that we believe to be our "reality."

I have considered all kinds of so-called rationalizations about my personal experiences but none of them ring true to me at all so I will have to go with my own feelings and conclusions and just remain alert for answers.

Truth is probably stranger than we can imagine.

Why does the idea of "a Designer" and science have to be at odds?

I don't think it is. Some people disagree.

The question is the science that proves there is a designer.

It isn't. That a total fallacy that many atheist are attempting to brainwash people to believe. (or potentially they've already been brainwashed to believe it themselves)

Atheists often act like science supports atheism and denies design, which a total crock of bull.

I was a natural born born scientist. I've studying science my entire life. All of my careers were in scientific fields. I even taught science. And I'm stilling taking every scientific course I can get my hands on even today (abeit mostly in the forum of video presentations now). But still these are actual college lectures, and not just documentaries, although I watch those too.

The bottom line is that not only is science no imcompatible with a designer, but the discoveries of science actually point to intelligent design far more than anything else. They certainly don't suggest happenstance at all.

So this is just atheistic dogma to preach that science and design are incompatible. They aren't.

I truly believe that this repugnance for an intelligent designer is actually born from the personified egostical jealous godheads of the western religions. People have been so turned off by those religions that they never want to hear anything about any 'intelligent designer' again.

I don't blame them. But at the same time it's a totally unwarranted fear.

There are other philosophies that allow for this universe to be a cosmic dream by a truely wonderous creator. And everything we see in science just allows for the mechanism of that mind to exist.

Science doesn't conflict with that picture at all.

OH PLEASE. We have been more then fair. Its abra and you, mostly abra, that sit here and make statements about how obvious it is, and how you cant help people that dont see the way you do ect ect.

Look, in one moment abra says this is scientific knowledge, in the next he says its personal opinion, in the next he insults our intelligence.

Sky, I have always respected you, but this post is really your reaction to our reaction of abra . . . . how does that play out for conflict?

Look in science the default position is to be open to all possibilities until a conclusive solution is presented, and even then we try to make the theory fail through experiment.

The evidence given for a designer is circumstantial at best, does not follow directly and is not scientifically conclusion at all.

Thus proper scientists remain agnostic about the origins of the universe, when natural processes rule, why posit a supernatural all knowing creator? When you dont find it elsewhere, why posit it at the ends of knowledge.

Its just a fancy thing theists, spiritualists, guru's, pantheists ect do to come to ultimate conclusions, its not based in the kinds of evidence science respects.

If you want scientists to respect your ultimate conclusions, provide some ultimate evidence.

Because science has strict standard of evidence, and people who have a limited understandings of science get mad when we scientists say there is no connection between natural order and purposeful design.

So what happens if/when a proof is not revealed?

You can assume that there is no proof and just walk away, or assume that there is proof and search for it.

Now the whole function of science is “finding proof of cause”. Ultimately, that is its purpose. So let’s assume that proof is assumed to exist but is unknown.

Now with that as an operating basis, where does the “onion peeling” lead?

There are only three possibilities that I can see
1) You run into something where the cause is unprovable.
2) You continue forever (turtles all the way down).
3) You run into a “final cause” that proves everything.

#1 leaves you with nothing but “The foundation of the universe is unknown”. And the only way out of that is to assume that there is a cause, but we just can’t prove it. Which leads directly to #2.

#2 is says that the foundation of the universe is inherently unknowable because there will always be an unknown lower layer.

#3 would have to be “uncaused cause”. But the problem there (aside from it being pretty much the defining property of god) is its circularity. Ultimately, the only final conclusion that can be arrived at is a paradox: “the machine is the cause of the machine”. (The machine is the only thing that exists, so it must have caused itself.)

And the only way out of that one is: “the machine has no cause” which would mean that science is searching for something that cannot exist.

In short, deductive logic cannot reveal the cause of the universe. Period. It must start from outside the universe to find the cause of the universe. But by it’s very definition, it is not allowed to start from outside the universe.

Also note that by it’s very design, science cannot find anything but “machine”. It is self-restricted to observation of the machine, so it is inherently unable to see anything but the machine. Thus it cannot, by its very design, determine the cause of the machine. It can only determine the causes of the internal interactions within the machine.

Enter Mighty Mouse (inductive logic) to save the day.

Joe Man-in-the-street simply says to himself “Well it waddles and it quacks, so I’ll classify it as a duck.”

He doesn’t care if it is a duck. What he cares about is that classifying it as a duck works.

And that’s fundamentally all that we “believers” are doing. Looking at it and observing that it has certain properties and classifying it based on those properties because it works.

But the problem comes in when someone else comes along and says “I know something you don’t know. And because of what I know, that you don’t, you should classify it the same way I do, regardless of whether or not you think it works.”

Well so far, I haven’t been shown evidence that works. I haven’t seen anything that leads me to change my classification of the universe from “happenstance” to “designed”. So I’m really in pretty much the same position as the OP: I want to be shown evidence of happenstance. And just like the OP, that evidence will have to follow my rules before I will accept it.

(But I promise not to get nasty about it if I don’t get what I want. : laughing:)

True the study of science doesn't conflict with intelligent design, it just hasn't been able to prove it at any level. It doesn't suggest it, it doesn't lead to it, it doesn't even presuppose it, but humans who want to see it do.