Bullsh*t! Proof is sound, relevant, and sufficient, whether you agree with it or not.

Well, for starters I wouldn't be looking for the actual designer. As far as I'm concerned that would be futile for the following reasons:

1. If the designer wanted to be revealed we'd know it.

The designer would just reveal itself. So clearly if there is a designer, that designer either can't, or won't reveal itself.

If we are the designer, that explains why the designer is not revealing itself. It's a game where the designer gets lost in the game until it FINDS itself. So revealing itself to itself would be counter-productive to the very nature of the game.

2. It is my understanding from the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics that certain knowledge exists that is physically beyond our reach. The mathematics of QM demands that we cannot know certain things. And this isn't because we're not clever enough. It's because this is the nature of physicality. As long as we are in physical form there are certain things about the nature of the quantum field that we can never possibly know, no matter how sophisticated we get. It's forbidden by the mathematics. Period amen.

So either Quantum Mechanics is wrong, or certain information has been forever 'hidden' from us. If there is an Intelligent Designer, then it makes sense to take that as an act of the Intelligent Designer to purposeful forbid us from discovering its darkest secrets.

So we're left with having to be satisfied with just finding evidence of a designer.

1. My first goal would be:

Look at the system and see if happenstance explains it.

If it explains it then I'm done and I don't even need to consider an Intelligent Designer.

So I do that. I'm not happy at all with happenstance as an explanation. Happenstance doesn't explain what I see. To believe this universe is happenstance would be far more outrageous then accepting that the Mona Lisa had been created by a garbage truck splashing mud on a canvass by driving through a mud puddle.

It's not a suitable explanation.

2. My second goal would be to make that result more meaningful

I've already explained in detail why it's unrealistic to think that only 100 random happenstance elements should just accidently do all the things that elements do in this universe. Particularly building themselves into conscious sentient beings.


3. My third goal, would be to look more closely at that DNA programming, particular the "Boot-strap-loader"!

I don't know if you're familiar with what that is, but no computer program can run without one. DNA necessarily must have a "Boot-strap-loading" sequence. That would be my third goal. To study that boot-strap loader in extreme detail.

Unfortunately I don't believe that even the Human Genome Program has a clue where that particular DNA sequence is yet. But I would love to study that baby!

That's precisely where I'd go.

I'm sure they'll find it eventually and when they do that's going to be an extremely exciting time in genetics.

Unfortunately, they'll probably just say, "Look! We found the boot-strap-loading sequence! No need for any God!"

What a bunch of idiots if they do that!

There is so much information that can be had from that little piece of code. That would be GOLD! I'd love to get my hands on that little strip of DNA. What a book that would be! No matter how small it is, the information contained in that boot-strap-loader will be enormous. That would be the information that the designers programmed in by hand! "so-to-speak"



As a scientist I have no "default". If I don't know something I just say so.

Agnostic ring a bell?

That's exactly where I'm at right now.

Although, I confess that I lean toward a designer because as far as I can see that's where the evidence is pointing.

Give me that little DNA boot-strap loader and I'll tell you volumes about the Intelligent Designer.

Creative wrote:

If there is a hypothesis which cannot be falsified through observation it is useless and discarded. Such a hypothesis is not worth the paper it is written on.

Abracadaba responded:

Better not say that too loud, the String Theorists might hear you!You don't want to interrupt Science in Progress do you?

Prove what?

look at your surroundings and believe what you want....i believe in evolution and what the universe created not a mythical figure

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP!!!

My point exactly. IF there was or is a designer, it is definitely not smart. Why do we have sadness? Pain? ugliness around us? Crack vicims? Heartburn? Bald spots? Moustache on women? Old age? Fear of death?

I am sure that a more mature, wiser, more intelligent designer would have been able to make a world that be very different from the one we live in.

In fact: If someone again says something about a smart designer, I'll declare that declarer stupid. Any designer who made or designed this world, was, at best, very stupid, cruel, immature, and had bad breath, his or her nose whistled during conversations, and had foot odor.

Well first off, understand that is not the entirety of my view. It was only in answer to your specific questions and with the idea of not going into the specifics of the game itself and the interactions between the game and the players and the interactions between the players themselves.

So at this point I have to go into that.

The design of the game is such that the rules themselves can be changed by the players. That is, the players can actually make up or change rules as they play. Sort of like how kids will make up games and add or change rules as they play. So actually, the rules of the game are a product of the interaction of the players. Just as in the kids made-up game, without the players, there would be no game. The players themselves are creating the game as they play it.

So how does that relate to science?

Science has, for the past few centuries, been narrowing it’s focus more and more to the point where it is now focused entirely on the game and completely ignoring the players. And it has reached the point where science’s fundamental position has turned the whole concept upside-down by proposing that the game creates the players.

Now one could say that religion is taking the opposite perspective – that the game is the product of at least one player (God). And depending on how many gods one postulates, there may or may not be multiple players.

Well I just take that one step farther and take the position that every living thing is a player. And to be even more accurate, I flip that around and use it to define the difference between “living” and “non-living”: “life” is what “plays” and “the game” is what “is played”. In terms of cause-and-effect, it says that everything about the game is ultimately the effect of the players. (Thus, my favorite statement “You create your own reality.”)

So as to your question “What is there to gain?”, I would suggest that there is a huge amount to be gained by scientifically investigating the process of how the players interact with the game.

And I think the PEAR/ICRL research (notably the man/machine interface research) is the most significant research to date in that direction.

The biggest problem is that the rules of scientific research itself will have to change from the current “hard core objectivism” to something that allows for investigating subjectivity itself.

And here are a couple of really good papers on that very subject:
“The Science of The Subjective” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/sos.pdf)
“Change The Rules!” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf)

Somebody HAS to agree with your alleged 'proof' before you can call it "proof."

Proof is a matter of agreement.

If proof were just a matter of agreement, then there would be no distinction between the two terms.

Agreement does not equate to proof.

Do I really need to explain more?

Agreement does not equate proof. I never said it did. I did not say that agreement and proof were the same thing. I said that proof is a matter of agreement. Proof depends on someone agreeing that what you have is proof.

If no one agrees, then you have not proven anything to anyone except yourself.

Now prove your statement. I just proved mine.

I disagree, proof is the revelation of truth, whether someone else agrees or not. Otherwise the proof of inteligent design is in the Bible.
The same with reality, perception does not denote reality. It does does matter if 2000 people say there are 10,000 blades of grass in a square foot. One blade hidden behind another and not perceived does not change reality, it just shows that we can't perceive it.

Abra makes alot of good points which alot of people agree with, yet nobody will admit that it's proof. What happens when we discover what quarks are made up of? What if our world boils down to binary code?

Before anyone can see proof, they must first admit to the possibilty that there may be proof. Until each side can concede that fact, this discussion is pointless.

Prove that what you just stated is a fact (ie: true)

I disagree. Therefore, by your own claim you have not proven anything.

Agreement does not equate proof. I never said it did. I did not say that agreement and proof were the same thing.

Proof is a matter of agreement.

Proof depends on someone agreeing that what you have is proof.

If no one agrees, then you have not proven anything to anyone except yourself.

Now prove your statement. I just proved mine.