Abra saidWell I don't know if I would go quite that far. But it is true that it is totally abstract and made-up by humans.

Ok, so you’ve shown it. So what? I’ve clearly shown on several occasions that order does equate to design, and vice-versa. But again, so what?

If I can’t see what you’ve shown, and you can’t see what I’ve shown, and we’ve both shown it on several occasions, then why keep beating the same dead horse.

If you’re actually trying to convince someone of something, then why keep saying, over and over, that you’ve already shown it? Or are you expecting that doing the same thing over and over will somehow have a different result?

Though I may not necessarily agree with every claim of her's, nevertheless, I do agree with JB's claim -- that the mainkind has already dispesed all over the universe -- consideriing the fact of our current civilization (from the neanderthal times to the present) is the 6th civilization on the planet -- according to some scientists!

Oh but personal experience is evidence. From a first person perspective, it is the only evidence there can possibly be. And the OP request specifically stated the first person perspective . "I want..."

Now the definition you gave included the phrase “ground for belief”. And if you understand how dictionaries work, you will know that phrase is intended to mean exactly the same thing as the next phrase - “proof”, and the previous phrase – “that which tends to prove or disprove something”, and the word being defined – “evidence”. So right off the bat you're working with both subjective ("belief") and an indeterminate ("tends") concepts.

Now since the word “for”, in this case, means – “suiting the purposes or needs of”, and the question specifies the target of the action of “showing” to be the OP (i.e. first person), the OP’s request can only be fulfilled by “ground+
/ that suites the personal purposes or needs of the OP’s belief in a designer”.

And that is entirely a first person perspective, i.e. personal experience. There is no second or third person anywhere in that portion of the OP request.

So not only does personal experience constitute evidence in and of itself, but in this case it is a necessary requirement for evidence.

Really.

Science "observes" and "describes".

That's what it does.

It doesn't even ask the hard questions really.

I once had a professor in physics that made this perfectly clear. He held up a ball and said, "Science doesn't ask, 'Why does this ball exist?', science merely accepts that the ball exists and goes about describing all of its properties, and how it moves. Period. That's what science does. If you want to know why the ball exists, you're taking the wrong course. Philosophy is down the hall and two doors to the right".

Abracadabra,

I saw not one sound argument in all that. I will take the time later to expose this fact. Wow, that was so.... so.... something.



Why is the man-made label 'design' any less gobbledygook than 'emergent property'?



If you are so fond of philosophy... give a syllogism.


Sky,

Regarding what you and I have shown, there is a relationship to be shown between that...

Creative asks to be shown evidence of a designer. That is first person as Sky says. He wants to be 'shown.'

The 'design' is 'evidence of the 'designer.'

Aside from that, he would have to meet the designer in person just as Dragoness said she wanted.

They are saying:

"If there is a God, then where is he? I want to see him."

I am saying that if they did meet the designers... they still would be unconvinced. I don't blame them. I would be a skeptic too until I had a believable story to go with it that detailed the entire process.

I look at where our science is headed and I see the designers of future worlds. That is why I believe.

Yes, you can believe that we will soon have the ability to trace our DNA back to our ancestors all the way back... that will tell us HOW to "design" the next race. That can tell us how to re-design the current humans. This is easy to see even for skeptics.

But how will we create worlds?

You have to really open your minds for this one. First of all, these kinds of designs are done in succession by many many layers of designers passing on their knowledge to the the others who come after them. But here is a start in that process:

"Wormholes and/or vortexes." They will be doors that open into other layers of reality. They will allow space travel to other star systems, even other galaxies. We will learn to design life from what is already known. We will seed worlds with material and watch it evolve and even assist its evolution at crucial points. We will become the watchers, as there are watchers watching us.

This is where we are headed. Yes it sounds fantastic and you will not believe this. You will not live to see this... unless of course you want to accept that reincarnation is true. (which I do)

But from where you are, and from what you are looking at, you will never find the proof you seek to be convinced of any of this.

I understand that much.

Show me how this universe must be a design.

Show me how it is not. (You are the design.)

The illogical nature of that question has been explained to you already.

What question???

I'm sorry. I missed that.

What is your definition of 'design?'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

That sounds good to me.

Since I assert and believe that all of this universe exists within a unified field that I call the universal mind, that would follow that all things within that mind constitute 'design.' This design is manifested via thought.

Since you don't agree with that premise and since I cannot 'show' you proof then you can conclude (or not) whatever it is that is left.

Hence our journey ends here.

Argument for what?

Design? Of course it wasn't. It wasn't intended to be an arugment for design.

All I did in that post was respond to your erroneous claims that Shoku had actually "explained" something.

All science does is describe what's going on. It doesn't explain anything.

That was the only point to that post.

This crap that science "explains" anything is baloney.

Science doesn't even claim to "explain" anything. All science does is describe.

That was the only point to that post. But clearly you didn't even understand that.

Sky mentioned in another thread that if there was a 'suggestion box' for the design of life, he would suggest that there be a better way to communicate with people.

Attempting to communicate with you has been as futile as attempting to communicate with my cat.

You seem to have a one-track-mind that is totally obsessed with "proof" of a designer that you can't even comprehend the concepts that are important to grasp before that question can even be meaningfully considered.

Even Sky has given up on trying to communicate that very idea to you. JB and I "get it", but you don't, obviously.

Science, by the very definition of what it does is not even in a position to consider a question that is outside of its box.

That's not meant as a 'put-down' to science. That's just a fact. The scientific method does not permit it.

All that science is "set-up" to do is to describe the behavior that it sees.

Science isn't in a position to even ask why!

It just describes what already exists in physicality.

It's takes the "nature" of what already exists for granted.

Then it describes how it behaves and calls that a "natural process".

Can you not see the folly in that from a philosophical point of view?

All you're doing is taking the unvierse for granted and saying, "Well it behaves the way it does because that's the way it behaves".

You've got to get "outside of that box" if you're going to be bold enough to ask a question like, "Could there be a designer behind it?"

That very term behind it should be a clue!

The very question demands that we step outside of the box.

The question is meaningless if you try to say within the box of merely observing behavior and saying, "Well that's just the nature of things".

That just refuses to even consider why it had the nature it does.

All you're doing is asking a question, and then flatly refusing to even consider it.

Why even bother asking if you're not even willing to consider it?

That's fruitless.

Truly.

This is utterly fruitless. This is dead in the water.

The question isn't truly even being considered at all.

All that's being done by Creative is an attempt to argue that it's good enough to just accept the nature of the universe for what it is and not ask why it is the way it is.

If that's his attitude then he's seriously not even remotely interested in seriously entertaining the question of whether or not the unvierse might be by design or not.

He's totally accepted that it just is what it is and no further explanation are required.

That's precisly where we're at after some 32 pages.

He may as well have posted in the OP:

"I don't believe in a designer and I'm not willing to even consider the idea"

That's precisely where he's coming from.

So why doesn't he just accept that this is his own view and quit pretending otherwise? That's what I don't understand.

I can certainly accept that this is his view.

Big deal.

You mean like saying that there are only 100 atoms and that that's some kind of magical number that points to a creator?

Scarecrow arguments, arguments from ignorance, begging the question, appeals to popularity. false dilemmas and analogies, affirming the consequent, and I think I've even seen some complex questions thrown out. If I dug up my old list I could probably name a few that aren't at the fallacy zoo page I've linked.

Remember reading those sentences where I set up the condition that I don't share my beliefs when people weren't asking? Ya, I don't appreciate having that omitted and then being asked questions I had already well enough answered with it.

I understand I jump around a bit but still.
Or have I mixed up the chronology here?

By the rules you laid out it would be.

But hey, should Nazis not have objected to Jews ruining their lives? Whether that's what was there or not that's certainly what they thought they saw.

Don't insult my intelligence, you were just claiming it to be the root.

And here you do it again. What in the world did you mean when you were talking about objections earlier?
But by your own opinions and beliefs you seem to have done something you were criticizing others for. Is this not hypocritical?

Because it doesn't include random extra steps.

If you hear scratching noises at night why is "tree branches on the window" default instead of "demons from hell are trying to claw at the fabric between there and my bedroom and I'd better cover the walls in mustard so they can't get through"? It sounds exactly like either of those things and even if you do find branches scratching on the window you can't wind time back to make sure that's what made the sound the first time, in fact maybe some of the demons already made it out of hell and they positioned the branch there to distract you!


Your methods are awful and I have to dig up explanations for what I thought were common sense in order to talk with you. That you ignore most of them is reason enough by itself to put me at odds with you, but thankfully I am excruciatingly patient.

And if some years down the road we look outside of the universe and personally watch the events that lead to it's origin and we can explain all of the reasons the universe is as it is in terms easy enough for everyone to understand then what?

And I'm not taking the position that there cannot be, just that evidence does not support it.
What we do have is more philosophical arguments for it than against it but that only indicates how popular either stance is as a belief among those that feel strongly about it.

Thus far I see only those questions of yours as the basis that naturalistic origins are not the best answer but that's an argument from ignorance fallacy (and I tore through those like a hot knife through butter anyway.)

It's the default in science. As I have said you are free to believe otherwise. It's important to teach people the default though because otherwise all they learn of what other people think is garbage misrepresentations, like calling any origin without a creator god behind it "chance," "luck," or "happenstance."

Default doesn't mean "100% certified truth." It means "here's the simplest explanation that fits everything we've seen so far," and you know what? My science teacher were very candid about when we'd seen a lot and when we'd only seen a little or nothing at all. Hopefully other people get the same quality teaching.

Try again~

Maybe try paying attention to what I'm saying?

I have one last thing to say and then I'll quit because this is going nowhere:

If this doesn't get through to people then I can only conclude that they don't have the capacity to even comprehend what I'm saying.

Let's do the car versus universe analogy one more time.

Please pay attention!

You have a car. I ask you if the car has a designer. You say, no, it doesn't need a designer because I can explain precisely how it runs and how everything on the car works.

I point to thing like the crankshaft, connecting rods, pistons, valves, etc., and I ask, "What about these parts? Where did they come from? There must have been a designer who designed these parts.

You say, "No. Those are just 'fundamental particles'. They just exist. They are a "given", we don't need to explain where they came from or whether or not they might have been 'designed'.

Given those 'fundamental particles' as the "nature" of the situation we can explain how the car runs and that's good enough.

Now let's go back to the Universe

You people are explaining how the universe runs. (just like someone would explain how a car runs).

So big deal? I can see how the universe runs myself. That's not the question.

The question is, where did the fundamental particles come from and why are they shaped they way they are?

In the car we had its fundamental "parts", like a crankshaft, pistons, etc.

In the universe we have its fundamental parts, like quarks, leptons and bosons.

So all you people are doing is taking "God's Dirt" (i.e. the quarks, leptons, and bosons) and explaning things in terms of their innate behavior.

They you are claiming that you've actually "explained" something.

But you didn't explain anything!

All you've done is observe how these fundamental particles behave.

I can't believe that you people can't see this.

You're just taking the fundamental particles of the unvierse for granted and pretending that they don't need to be explained.

If you allow me that luxury with car parts, then I could argue that there is no evidence for a designer of cars either because crankshafts, pistons, valves, and spark plugs are taken for granted as already existing.

That's all you people are doing with the universe. You're just taking the quarks, leptons, and bosons, for granted and saying, "We don't need to explain them, they are fundamental".

What?

Science hasn't explained anything!

All science has done is describe how unexplained things behave.

I can't believe you people can't see this.

It's crystal clear to me, JB and Sky.

You people are playing with "God's Dirt" and pretending that you know something.

That's silly.

Science has no explanation for "God's Dirt".

Yep.

And they think WE are delusional or idiots.




Over and out.

The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman is a entertaining movie of how the author shares his views on "God's dirt or dust" and how everything started.

It is a fantasy movie, but had much controversial debates and negativity amongst Catholic believers at one time. I think even the Catholic heads even indicated that it shouldn't be watched if you are a catholic. Of course this isn't the first time this happened. Harry Potter was another movie that had negative effects on Christian religion. Of course I am not saying all Christians had a problem with it, but nevertheless, it was discouraged by a large population who practice this faith system.

I mainly watched "The Golden Compass" for entertainment and donated money to help polar bears at the time when advertised.

Perhaps someone has watched it and thought about this possibility of design. Even though it is pure fiction it does have one thinking about the many possiblities of what could have started everything as we know it.