Neither does your argument. If you don’t know how “a large hadron collider” works *you either say “I don’t know how it works” or you try to find out how it works.
You should conclude that this particular argument is not strong enough to draw a conclusion from. You should then look for further evidence of the hadron collider not being built, which wouldn’t be very hard to find if it were the case.
Save this kind of comment for the Pit if you have to say it it all. Don’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates. If you think someone is trolling then please report the post.
So once you make your initial assertion based on ignorance of the subject, you just quit looking any deeper? Sounds like willful ignorance to me.
And I say it isn’t. I say that studying the atom reveals one of the most beautifully elegant structures with seemingly limitless functionality that some would argue you’ll ever see. Given that all of my life experience has taught me that you can’t produce things 1/1000th as elegant and functional as an atom without a designer and creator, the existence of the designer and creator becomes inferred. And believing in things based on inference is nothing to discard, unless you discard the existence of dark matter and dark energy.
In order to determine if the large hadron collider was designed, I should begin by learning how it works?
Hint: There’s far quicker methods at my disposal than that.
“And I have no evidence it was designed”, would also be a logical conclusion to draw, according to you?
Oh yes, I was really hoping you’d bring up Dark Matter and Dark Energy!
Why do you always feel the need to draw a conclusion? Are you that uncomfortable with “I don’t know”?
Apparently “guessing” is one of your methods, along with “jumping to conclusions”.
Hasn’t that same life experience taught you that designers have a beginning, need space to reside in, time to make things and that complex things haven’t always existed but come about through a gradual process?
I am not ignorant about the elegance and structure of the atom. I’ve seen elegance and structure before, but never for anything that I know wasn’t designed. Inference should therefore lead me to think that the atom was probably… (fill in the gap here).
You’ve admitted you believe in evolution right?
Very uncomfortable.
But nor do I claim to “know” that the universe has a designer/creator. I simply find it more plausible than the universe not having one.
Yes, with nothing but that tiny nugget of information (I don’t know how this thing works) to work with that would be the only reasonable conclusion. Of course you’d have no evidence to the contrary either.
Which processes have you observed during your “life experience” that included a designer that had no space and time in which to cause them to be?
I believe that genetic mutations can sometimes produce traits that give the possessors of those traits a survival advantage over those members of the same species that don’t possess them, and that these traits can be inheritable, yes.
That explains a lot.
None.
Well then, if this isn’t elegant and functional:
I don’t know what is.