For future reference, here is how it works-You gather all available information, then make an informed opinion based on that information, always being open to changing said informed opinion when more information becomes available. In the case of your “collider”, we have available the name of the designer, the plans used, and filmed footage of it being built.
If I breached established forum rules with that, then I apologise.
We don’t disagree on that.
But we might disagree on whether the process that allows for genetic information to be copied, and sometimes mutated, is designed.
Thank you for proving my point.
Failing to “understand how something works” is actually not the catch-all excluder for deciding whether something was designed.
EDIT But I actually understand a lot about how atoms work, so I can only assume you are referring to the fact that I have not observed the creation of atoms, and it’s that which I don’t understand (by created I mean, by a sentient entity or otherwise).
Why go through the trouble? If you’re creating stuff wouldn’t it make more sense to just say “poof” and have the world exist as it is?
You see, there’s the problem. You make unwarranted assumptions.
Depends what your goal is, I guess.
Alright then…
“But Czarcasm, I do understand fairly well (in terms of modern understanding) how atoms work, and I still think they look, and show traits that I have only seen arise from, creation and design”.
Don’t you see a problem with that?
None of your life experiences include things that looked designed not having a designer (which is faulty reasoning since it assumes all of the non-man made things you’ve encountered have been designed). Because of this, you conclude everything that looks designed must have a designer.
None of your life experiences include designers that haven’t had a beginning, don’t need space to reside in, and don’t need time to make things, but you’re willing to make an exception and conclude this designer exists anyway. Why conclude that your first premise holds true when you don’t have the same standard for your second?
There seems to be a disconnect centered around this statement, between you and the other folks posting here - you claiming evidence of design, the others here calling your statements an argument from ignorance. I think I see the discrepancy, so if you’ll allow me to butt in…
When you say that atoms (and energy? really?) looked “designed,” what you’re saying is that you can’t come up with any explanations of their existence, other than a designer doing it. That’s what people are inferring from your statement, because they (and I) can’t imagine what it would mean to look “designed” other than “I can’t think of a way this could happen spontaneously.”
If you mean something else when you say it “looks designed,” then please elaborate.
That’s why everyone here is telling you that it’s an argument from ignorance - saying that you can’t come up with another explanation is just that.
Thank you Curt. I was just in the middle of trying to post the same thing.
You’ve provided exactly NO evidence for your claim. “I think the universe looks designed” is not evidence, it’s a conclusion, arrived at in the absence of evidence. And when we ask for evidence, you just repeat “I think it looks designed.” And you accuse me of “circular reasoning”. :rolleyes:
I guess I’m “Random Contributor” in the above. Nice. I didn’t realise this was a private conversation. Ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy? Looks like you’re using the “Random Contributor” jibe to dismiss what I said, rather than to actually address it.
Well then, show us something that’s been designed that acts, looks, or in some other way resembles the weirdness that is an electron.
No. But we’ve never lived in any spooky mansions.
I think it is easier to teach rationalism consistently. It takes less time to show how to go about approaching a problem rationally than teaching one set of rules for “science,” another set for astrology and yet another set for religion. Plus, it is not like there is only one person doing this. Every teacher should be enrolled.
Larger us? That’s either trivially true - we are of course connected to others all over the world, and increasingly so, or odd, if it means we are connected to some sort of overmind. But I agree we should sample all sorts of stuff, especially if we have good analysis tools. I’m far more skeptical of UFOs and ESP from having read pro-saucer books and Rhine when I was a kid.
I’ve always found that I understand something much better when I understand the framework behind it, not just facts. Doesn’t history make more sense when you understand the forces causing the events, and not just the dates of the events? Focusing on one “myth” is like teaching dates. Let’s focus on the process, and the myths will take care of themselves - and if someone who gets the process can support the truth of what others call a myth, so much the better. Principles like the immutability of time fall by the wayside given the evidence - I don’t see how the principles of rationality will, not in our universe at least.
If you believe all elegant things are designed, then you must believe all snowflakes are individually designed also. Or do you accept that their structure and beauty can come from simple, non-designed, means. If you don’t like that example, try dropping some oil in colored water and seeing that “design.”
There is a twofold way of discounting design. First, see if you notice a designer. Second, see if there is a natural, undesigned, way for the structure to exist. Before Darwin we could be excused for thinking that man and animals were created. After, we have a simple way of the complexity of these things to come into being, and it seems you even accept this. You’ll have to explain why DNA could not “evolve” from simpler replicating molecules - as for errors in replication, that not happening would have to be explained, given the known sources of mutation. It is easy to give design as an answer if you stop looking for the actual answer.
Given that Kelly has vanished, I infer that his head exploded.
It could be like the ink blot test or people seeing the Virgin Mary or Jesus etc, in pancakes etc. it is a matter of chance, and the way some people like to see things. A Hindu doesn’t see Mary in a pancake but a believer seems to. Belief is just that belief, and notice the word LIE is central to be_Lie-f. Does that make belief a lie…no. it is a matter of one’s perspective.
Neither did we. I meant larger extended family. A couple of my aunts had ghost stories that made it through the family.
I certainly agree in the sense that we must learn to value the truth and how that is connected to facts, scientific facts. historic evidence. Most religions are already taught to value the truth, and then still stubornly hang on to myth. I also agree that basic logic and reasoning is the same throughout the sciences and philosophy for that matter.
I enjoy understanding the framework. Sometimes the framework is revealed as repeated human behaviour patterns. When I read “The Religions of Man” I began to understand how mankind , regardless of culture, would take a teaching and a teacher and grow it into a religion adding myth and “divine authority” as they went.
I don’t think we’re really in disagreement. When you teach history you wind up focusing on one era or event at a time but while doing that you also teach how to appraoch history. The same with science. I’m suggesting we focus on the myths that we have the most conclusice evidence about , and in the process of appraoching those we include that any committment to the truth must include scientific facts. I think it’s important for believers and non believers to understand that a human belief system is made up of intellect and emotion. The emotion side isn’t a negative but it must be recognized and considered so we might know when emotional attachment and need has had too much sway.
Let’s look at it this way. I’m suggesting we teach people to be more realsitic and rational by carefully choosing what myth we examine as a method of teaching rationalism and critical thinking. If you appraoch a myth where the evidence is closest to undeniable you stand a better chance.
From my own experience I noticed my emotional attachment to certain details. It took time to let go. I think if you go after basic god belief and the possibility of an afterlife the door will be closed fairly quickly largely due to the fact that we can’t show conclusively that those things don’t exist. The desire for it to be so will attach itself to that detail.
If you appraoch other less significant myths where the evidence is much more conclusive you have a better chance of being considered and the opportunity to teach rational thinking continues.