This idea came up in another thread, but since the topic of that thread is interesting in and of itself, I wanted to allow for this side discussion's growth - if need be.



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

I used to know one. Her name was Helen B., she was from England and had made herself quite a name in the fashion industry. Now she's painting imaginative pictures, which, to her chagraine, nobody wants to buy. She, at whatever age she's at, is still incredibly good-looking.

I used to know another designer, at the same stage of life (well beyond retirement age) who was a fashion guru in Montreal. We used to play Bridge together at a Unitarian chruch. She would be inviting with me at the Bridge sessions, but each time I called she put me out and said she doesn't want to date. She was also incredibly good-looking. I forgot her name, but not her country of origin: Hungary.

But no, I cannot actually prove to you that these designers exist. And maybe they don't exist any more, anyway. They were old then, when I used to know them.

Very clever wux...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Xeyed? Huh? Vice versa? Jeese, you made me trip over my tongue.

How would you say that in Latin? It's already half-Latin. I was always late in Latin classes, but not quite absent at any one class. At the Prom I saw my late Latin teacher, Evi, dence. She was drunk with absynthe. No absence of absynthe at the dence for Evi, and the cup was made of, voila: Tin.

It simply means that just because there has been no evidence given to establish the existence of a thing, it does not necessarily follow that that thing does not exist.

(Copied from another thread.

Unless you are specifically choosing to exclude inductive reasoning, there actually is evidence of intention.

We see ourselves intentionally creating things – tools, cities, hills, atoms, etc.

We see other life forms intentionally creating things – anthills, bird nests, etc.

In every instance of creation we see in any and all life forms, there is intention.

The creations we and other observable life forms produce always contain "order".

And all of that is “evidence” that at least some creation is done intentionally.

So from the viewpoint of inductive logic, proposing that creation is intentional is perfectly valid.

Just like it is considered to be perfectly valid to propose that (for example) all mental disorders are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. There is no direct evidence of it. But many still assume it to be true and operate as if it were.



(Yes, I realize this is not entirely airtight, but it's a start in the direction I'm interested in going. I think the main stumbling block is going to be "intention")

I got THAT...! What do you think, my brain is made of mashed potatoes? Or geLatin? or the designer took my sense up? (Up sense!)

Al Gore! He is the big bang himself, You see back before there was anything other than a single proton this proton farted and out blasted Al Gore.

Your argument SOOO does not hold water... but I'll be a dogsitter before I start debating with you again.

why not ask for evidence of santa?

There is the rub Sky. One must beg the question. The first question should be can we prove a designer exists? Before a design can be created, it must first have a source - the designer.



There is evidence of that Sky. That is another topic though.



So little is 'airtight'. It just keeps the mind open!

Wux wrote:



Uh...nope!

Just because I was unsure if you had understood me, does not mean that I believe that you are a nin-come-poop!

Words well said. Except I am a nin-cum-poop.

EDIT: No naughtiness. I meant simply that I am a nin with a poop.

EDIT EDIT: hWellll... Latin again. Sigh.

Some would consider saying "Your argument SOOO does not hold water..." to be "starting a debate".

Watch me not say a word.

Arguing (debating) against you actually HURTS. That's been my personal experience.

Look in a mirror.

If that doesn't convince you then there isn't much sense in even bothering to consider the question any further.

Well when you put it that way, the question itself is nonsensical. If we're talking about spacetime as defined by physics, then there cannot be a creator, simply because the entire concept of spacetime precludes any concept of "before". So really, if you accept the physics concept of spacetime as a premise, then you can actually "prove" that there cannot be any such creator of spacetime.

I count 36 words in two posts so far.

There is truth to that.

Reminds me of...

"If you can't find it in your own back yard, then you never really lost it to begin with." - Dorothy Gale in "The Wizard of Oz"

(Yes, I know that's a misquote. But the idea is there. )