I don't place my confidence in hardcore mainstream scienctific authority, so I don't get involved in strictly scientific 'debates.' I feel that it (science) is flawed in a lot of areas.

Therefore I probably cannot address your points in a manner that would be 'acceptable' to you.

I was just following along with the OP question. Prove there is an intelligent designer, wasn't that the question?

No he was only asking for evidence, not proof.

"I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe."

preempted by Jeannybeans -- I said the same thing. Double post, in a way.

Well great minds think alike they say.

evidence and proof are the same thing...lol

Tell that to a jury of your peers with they convict you of a crime you did not commit. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

(No wonder I can't seem to communicate with these people)

Not at all!

Re-read the question, keeping in mind the relevant logical truth that was given along with it. I would be more than interested in hearing your answer to it, rather than one which you choose. Quote the original post from which you selectively chose these words. Paste the entire post and then answer...

If you would.

I'll have to disagree. Proof only exists in math and alcohol. Evidence is an indication that something is true. In the context of science, nothing can be proven, but evidence can always be presented.

Colloquially, however, you're right. lol.

Unless, of course, no one else (but me) assumes one means scientific evidence when they say evidence.

Thank you.

((Of course I don't assume you mean scientific evidence when you say evidence. I am an investigator, not a scientist. My evidence goes into a court of law.))

But then here's where we have a problem:

ev⋅i⋅dence
  /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

By your definition, Dragoness is right, and evidence and proof are the same thing. However, I can't abide by that standard of evidence. That's why I refer to scientific evidence. It's held to the standard of science and falls under a rather different definition.

1. Evidence must be accepted as evidence and considered by the opposition.

2. Evidence must be judged or deemed to be "sufficient" to be weighed as "proof" by the deciding authority(s).

3. Said "proof" must be convincing and agreed upon in order to even be considered "proof."



You can have tons of 'evidence' but if it does not convince anyone, it is either useless or it is deemed insufficient, hence it is not proof.

That is where logic steps in.

And this is why this discussion will go NOWHERE. No one can agree on semantics.

The 'issue' is readily solved.

Describe exactly what constitutes proof without using the word evidence, and vice-versa.

Logical truth are you talking about?

This:



He didn't "explain" anything. All he did was describe what we observe the universe to do. That's not an explanation of why it behaves the way it does. That's just a description of what it's doing after the fact that it had already been designed to behave that way.

I can't believe that you can't see this. Jeanniebean, help me out here!

Micheal, we can't just observe how the universe behaves, and then say, "Well that's why it behaves that way!"

That's baloney.

That's utter nonsense.

Especially in the face of the question, "Were these processes designed?"

You can't just look at the processes and say, "Well, that's the way they behave, so I guess we have no need for a designer"

This would be like you coming to me with a brand new car, and I ask you if it had a designer, and you said, "I don't think so".

Then I asked why the motor runs the way it does. And you start to explain how the pistons go up and down in the cylinders and suck in air and fuel and then come back up and compress the fuel and a spark goes off to ignite the mixture and the chemical reactions push the piston back down, and the momentum keeps it going for the next compression stoke, etc, etc, etc.

Big deal. That doesn't explain the design of the engine. All that does is explain how the engine RUNS.

So then I ask, "So why is the crankshaft shaped the way it is", you say, "That's just the way it is. That's it nature"

And I say, "I don't think so. I think someone designed that crankshaft and pistons, and all the little valves, etc."

Then you say, "No, that's just the nature of the machine. There's no need to postulate a designer, we can explain how it RUNS!"

Do you see what I'm getting at?

All Shoku is describing is how stars RUN. He's taking their crankshafts, pistons, and valves for granted!

In this case the "Cranshafts, pistons, and valves" would be the actual design of the atoms themselves.

Atoms behave the way they do because of their configurations and properties. Atoms actually make stars behave the way they do, not the other way around!

Stars don't form atoms. Atoms form stars!

The properties of the quantum field (i.e. the properties of the atoms) had already been carved in stone long before the first star ever began to give off any light.

Stars don't have anything at all to do with 'designing atoms'. Atoms create stars!

Stars are nothing more than the result of what atoms do!.

You can't just take the crankshafts, pistons, valves and sparkplugs of this universe for granted, describe how they behave, and then say, "See, no need for any designer".

How silly is that?

The question is whether or not their is a designer. And all you people are doing is describing the behavior of the unvierse after the fact that it's been designed, and saying, "See, it runs all by itself. There's no need for a designer."

Like duh? Did you actually hear the original question?

"Is this universe designed or not?"

The question isn't, "Does the universe run?".

Of course it runs!

We already knew that.

Now let me address your second concern:



That's totally irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what we can know from our shabby mathematical model we call Quantum Mechanics.

The only things that's important in regard to the question at hand is whether or not the Quantum Field Determines all?

You talk about "emergent properties". But that's just a human abstract notion. If this universe was indeed designed by an intelligent mind, then the designer may very well have designed the atoms to have precisely these properties that you call "emergent properties".

Let's go back to the car example.

You look at the car, and you see a brake pedal, you see hydraulic lines, you see brake pads, and rotors or drums. These things don't mean much to you, but that's obviously part of the nature of the beast right?

So then you start driving down the road and when you press on the break pedal you notice that the car comes to a stop. So you get all excited and say, "Wow! I just discovered an emergent property from all that hydraulic plumbing stuff! If I activate this while the car is moving it will cause the car to slow down and stop!

The designer is slapping his forehead.

No kidding he shouts! That's WAS the design you idiot!

You look at DNA evolving into life and say, "Oh wow! An emergent property.

In the meantime the designer of the universe is slapping forehead.

No kidding he shouts! That's WAS the design you idiot!

Then wux start slapping his forehead.

What a horrible design!



So it's an Edsel. No one claimed that this universe is a Rolls Royce.

But really, that's not the question. We can give other philosophical arguments of why a 'perfect' universe would make no sense and be totally uninteresting.

The only point that I'm trying to make is that you can't just describe how this unvierse runs and say, "See, we can describe how it runs, therefore there is no need for a designer"

That would be the same thing as describing how a car runs and saying, "That's suffcient. We don't need to explain how the parts were made, or where they came from."

If this universe was designed it was design via the properties of the quantum field.

We may not know everything about the quantum field. But that doesn't change the fact that the properties of the quantum field completely determine the behavior of this universe (including any properties that humans might decide to label as "emergent properties".

There is no such thing as an emergent property to the quantum field. Everything it does emerges as a property of physicality in this unvierse.

So the very concept of an emergent property is nothing more than totally meaningless abstract semantic gobbledlygook made-up by humans.

It depends - are things that don’t follow any known laws of physics considered to be external to the universe???

Exactly! That is inherent in the scientific method. It cannot look "outside the box". By it's very definition it must stay in the box.

Empty your mind

There is never nothing going on

There are no ordinary moments

There are no ordinary minds

Everyone is unique

Remember to empty your mind

Have a great time friends

-smiless

Bingo!