No you haven't shown anything plausible here other than what you believe.

Your belief is neither plausible nor logical.

It may be to you.

But where did something come from is always relevant in all discussions about something existing "just because".

If we are to make a claim that something *always* existed, then what logical reason(s) do we have for proposing that an entity always existed? Where is this entity? Can it be shown?

If we are to propose something *always* existing based upon what we do know, then it is much more reasonable to propose that the universe itself always existed, because we can see it, identify it, and therefore reasonably and confidently learn from it without presupposing some unobservable entity which is responsible for things that we can see.

Okay let me ask another question.
How can we look at a dead body and determine that the person was murdered or killed by someone else's hand?

By identifying the murderer? Not necessary.
By proving reason, purpose and/or intent? Not necessary.

We CAN look at a dead body and determine if it was a murder or a natural death or suicide by looking at other evidence.

Therefore, there should also be a method by which we can identify a design in the same manner. By looking at other evidence.

That makes sense to me.

To demand that we must identify the murderer and his reason, purpose or intent or else we cannot determine that a body was murdered is not a given.

Therefore it is not a given that we must identify the designer, and the reason, purpose or intent of the design.

If I see a painting I know that it is a design without having to resort to identifying the designer, his reason, purpose or intent.

So by logical conclusion, (or common sense if you don't like me using the term "logic,")I have decided that there must be some method to determine a design without doing these things.

That is what I am asking. Does anyone have any ideas how that might be accomplished?

The problem here is that you seem to be stuck on some concept of an entity like a God or something on that order.

I would like to suggest that the universe itself is intelligent and the universe itself IS THAT ENTITY. And yes, we can observe it.

Except that identifying the reason for death is not a completely accurate science either.

Amazing sometimes but not accurate always.

So the analogy doesn't work that we can always identify the "design" without origin or intent.

Your belief is the only way to describe it. Unless you say "my logic" or "my common sense" tells me....then it will work.

The end result it that if there is not a mind to see the design or designs or lack of, there is no design.

No its not.

And we are equal on that point because you can't tell me where it came from and I can't tell you where it came from.

Saying that it came from "nothing" is not saying anything. The only thing that can come from nothing is nothing. If you have nothing and you add nothing you still have nothing. If you have nothing and you subtract nothing you still have nothing. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.




Between your theory and mine, mine is more plausible because:

1.) There is visible evidence that the entity exists. We can see it.
It is THE UNIVERSE ITSELF.

2.) There is visible evidence that something exists.

3.) Nothing does not exist therefore it cannot give birth to something or anything.

4.) The state of NO-THING and the state of SOME-THING cannot both simultaneously occur!

5. The state of SOME-THING exists NOW.

6. Now is infinite. Everything that exists EXISTS NOW in this present moment.

7. The past is a memory, the future a dream. They do not exist.

I did not say it was. I just said that it was possible. Ever watch NCIS?



Why would you imagine that I said that?

I did not say that "we can always identify the design without the origin or intent."

I said that there logically should be a method to determine a design without identifying the designer or the intent, reason or purpose. I am simply looking for that method. You and other nay-sayers with your negative affirmations keep saying "impossible."

I disagree.






What is that statement all about? What are you talking about when you say "if there is not a mind..." We all have minds. That is way off topic. Who is talking about not having a mind?

Exactly. And I agree.

Your whole list maybe what you believe but it is not by any means proof of anything other than your belief.

You have the right to it but do not pass it off as a scientific logic of some kind because it is not.

If you take everything back to the furthest deduction possible you get to nothing. So all your poetic nothingness talk still doesn't negate the fact. Everything taken back to it's base and simplest place is back to nothing.

Of course nothing may be more than what we consider nothing to be. But as our minds stand that is what it is. Nothing is what everything comes from.

Which makes design and intelligence developed traits of life, not the creators of life.

A thing with a small amount of information (encoding) that performs a particular useful function for another thing (that it might or might not be a part of) may not have enough intelligence or awareness to know what its purpose is or why it is performing its function. To know its purpose may not even be necessary for it to be used for a particular function.

Call it the "need to know" clause. It doesn't need to know.

In fact most forms of intelligence don't know what their purpose is or the reason they are performing it. (Even some humans don't know.) Perhaps their only reason is to survive as they find their place within the whole.

A city for example, when seen from above looks like there are millions of tiny little bugs crawling about. Lights flicker, traffic moves through streets, people are all moving about performing their functions in the city to keep that city running and to keep surviving in that city. There are garbage collectors, funeral directors, street workers, shop keepers, criminals, drug dealers, politicians, etc. etc. There are an unimaginable amount of things going on down there in that little patch of earth where that city is seen from high in the air that you would never venture to guess about.

Things naturally work together for the whole in a city and inside of your body. What is responsible for that? I think it is communication. Certainly there has to be communication to keep a city running and certainly there has to be communication in your body to keep it running.

The chip on your shoulder is obvious. Why don't you get over it.

You cannot disprove any of my above statements.

So what if it is my belief? (I don't care if you agree with me or even understand what I am saying)

And I am not passing anything off as scientific logic. It is all common sense. And extremely simple too.

If you don't like what I am saying just don't read this thread.

Things work naturally together from familiarity and survival. That is not a design, that is a survival mechanism.

The symmetry is not always preordained. Sometimes it happens and works so it learns to do it the same way each time after that.

Again life is what brings design and intelligence, not the other way around.

And that would only be true if your definition for "something" is physical matter.

to some, Spirit does not exist. It is "nothing."

So, if everything goes back to nothing, then it goes back to spirit.

No chip here except when people pass of their beliefs as "common sense" and "logic" when they are not.

State your beliefs and call them such and we can carry on with the conversation on the basis of your beliefs and mine, which I haven't even shared here yet.

Which one of my statements are you prepared to counter with your own supportive evidence that they are not true then?

When are you going to back up all of your remarks with something that has some real teeth or some information that I can actually consider and learn something from?

So far I have learned nothing from you. So far all you have done is state your opinion with nothing, not even a theory to back it up.

Why would you require from me more than you require from yourself?

You have provided nothing of what you ask me for.

Bull crap. If you can THINK then I have provided you something to think about. But you are too busy standing your ground, defending your position and keeping your mind closed. You have not provided me anything to think about or consider.

End of communication.

Pot calling the kettle, me thinks...lol

But you made a similar claim...

Kettle calling the pot perhaps?

"Nothing is what everything comes from."

Yes, it continues to look like you've made some assumptions about my post.



Despite appearances, I'm really not here to explain everything to everyone.



I really dislike it when there is an evident misunderstanding, and someone uses the word 'this' in a sentence as you have above, rather than inserting 'that which is referenced' explicitly into the sentence. There is always the chance of misunderstandings propagating. Based on the grammar, the only interpretation I can see is:

You are asking if there is a thread in which I've proven that people with full heads of hair cannot become bald? In other words, you doubt that I've really proven the previous, right? Sweet!