Concerning evidence for a designer.

I think it is safe to say that we don't know.

Of course many will have great thesis and idealogies claiming they know or are very close. That is why there are followers that share the same view.

Here on this specific thread we can clearly see difference of opinion, yet as we live and grow old, how important was it to know and ask yourself if you could of constructed your time more wisely on other subjects that could have really made a difference in our societies today.

I am not saying don't discuss these hard questions that have been asked for thousands of years, yet what purpose does it have if we try to figure it out on a tiny planet in a vast galaxy or galaxies for that matter.

My personal belief is that we should advance in technology to somehow travel at super fast speeds to see other universes to find more answers that could answer some of the questions we have been asking for a very long time. I mean think about it. You have had some of the greatest minds tackle these questions who shifted this world for better or worse (you decide) and in the end they passed away leaving only a footprint of what they believe to be true and what only some (not all) accept to be true.

So in the end will we advance in technology enough to (perhaps) find more answers to how or who the designer is? That is if there is a designer and only if we can even come close to comprehending this.


Now maybe I don't make much sense here for you highly intelligent posters that have studied alot of this in your lifetime, yet consider the possiblity that perhaps our answers are beyond this universe. I would say we need to fly to the Pegasus system where some European scientists have discovered a possiblity of planets that could hold life. We could get DNA samples or whatever they use over there (hoping they are more advanced in the questions we ask) to hopefully get a better perspective of how everything started.

Of course I can't believe it will happen in our lifetime, but if we can somehow stablize this world to unite more into space programs and to stop unneccessary wars, disagreements, and suffering, we might be able to advance quicker. Of course this sounds utterly impossible, yet I would like to believe that we can somehow fix our internal problems on this planet and concentrate more into knowing more of what is out there by investing into it.

Thanks for reading all this and now back to the program with the host 'Creative' asking the mighty and difficult question.

What designed or who was the designer of everything, of our universes, and galaxies?

Yes it is. I really enjoyed that one. I'd like to watch it again. In fact, I think I will, since it's at my local library.

It was really cool. The bear was cool too.



All because it suggests that childern should be cautious that religious authoritarians might be lying to them.

I personally think we could use a whole lot more of that mindset.

Yes, it would be, which then makes it supportive of my claim.

Whether or not they “should have” is irrelevant to my point.

Well excuse my typo. (Or not – your choice).

Do you really consider your intelligence to be insulted by a typo???

This is a perfect example of where you appear to be coming from – looking for things to object to, not trying understand.

As I said in the part of the quote that you conveniently mined out, if I were doing that, then yes, I would be hypocritical. So unless you can show me where I objected to him thinking sometrhing, then you’re just fabricating stuff to object to out of thin air.

I object.

Getting back to the original OP and the issue...

I originally framed the OP in terms of “with our current knowledge, can anyone present proof/evidence of an intelligent designer?” (my quotes)

This was not the same frame of reference which some others used, in fact most others seemed to be looking for A priori beginnings. But what I’ve discovered is that most of those references look for that A priori (designer) to have created/designed this specific solar system and possibly others that might function in exactly the same way.

This is also a limited frame of reference, in fact it is subject to many more errors and much more creative thought than the more confined frame of looking only within the range of our possible knowledge. If A priori beginning is what you think would explain our solar system then there can be no proof/evidence. That is my conclusion, please allow me to explain.

Depending on where you get the information it is estimated that in the observable universe there are 80 to 100 billion galaxies. A galaxy is commonly defined as a collection of stars, gas, and dust bound together by gravity. Our solar system is in the Milky Way galaxy and it is possible that billions of solar systems are in the Milky way alone. As Abra pointed out earlier the number of stars has been estimated to be about 10^22. Our solar system only has one star but some can have many.

The point of providing that information is to make clear the enormous number of possibilities that stretch out before us. We can not know what elements exist in other galaxies and to assume that they must all be exactly like our own would be foolish.

We often conclude that out of so many possibilities there will be intelligent life somewhere but beyond that we can conclude little else. Although the information I presented has existed for some time, it was not until the 1990’ s that the first planets were even detected orbiting a star in another galaxy, and the planets were not seen, they were detected by applying knowledge of how our own solar system functions. But just because we can apply some of the laws of gravity, motion, light and so on to distant solar systems, or galaxies does not mean those systems are comprised of other similar natures (as in elements or even other matter).

For example – we cannot assume that our solar system contains all possible elements, perhaps there are whole galaxies that share only a few with us, but they can follow many of the same general laws, while at the same time producing incomprehencible life forms.

So, as Shoku suggested, science is the act of pealing back layers upon layers only to get to a new layer. That is just our solar system (one) within our galaxy of which there are billions.

According to some, we have peeled back the layers far enough (the Big Bank)to determine three or four elements which have adapted, evolved,to emerge into what we see today.

We do not know where those few elements came from or why they became so active. Thinking that such knowledge can only lead to a prime source, the designer, is not logical because there are many billions of other solar systems and galaxies from which those elements may have come, the pathways themselves are incalculable.

So from my point of view there are a heck of a lot of onions to peel before the idea of an A priori can even be considered.

One other issue continues to plague the idea of a prime source and it is this: If it were possible to finally get to the core of the last onion to be peeled, we would have (relatively speaking) effectively deconstructed all of matter (in every solar system, galaxy, and beyond) – so what would exist?

This has long been a philosophical area of discussion, one that Rene Descartes attempted to settle once and for all. (oh well!) If the A priori (prime mover/creator, designer, god..) “exists” then we have not gotten back to original cause because something had be the cause of the designer.

Of course the philosophical argument goes that there is actually a creature of thought alone and that all matter is merely the dream of that impotent intelligence – this idea persists today in many circles –and in many larger circles it persists as creation myth.

And so those are my reasons why no conclusive evidence of a designer will be found, we simply cannot get through all the matter in all of possible space – why? Because we have no way to determine the beginning place – because all matter is ever in flux, ever emerging anew. From the big bank only a few elements have followed this pattern of flux and emergence and there is no indication it will stop.

Abra that is not QM noting is being purposefully hidden from our knowledge there is simply too much to be known and too many new things to be learned – to me that is “natural” and presents a logical reason to why science does not consider a designer - there are simply too many other options out there.

DI,

I think we all have concluded that no one can prove anything, especially when 'science' can only 'see' within the confines of this universe.

You said: "---there are simply too many other options out there."

No there are not.

"Out there" are only many things yet to be known and observed within this universe.

There are only two options that are being considered here.

Either this entire universe was happenstance or it involves some sort of intelligent design.

Neither side of this argument can present enough "evidence" to convince the other and this has been duly noted and the thread and subject declared over. It would be fruitless to continue over the same grounds.

But thanks anyway for your input.

It is fair to say in order to have intelligent things they must be started by more intelligent factors . Therefore humans were found by something or some things more intelligent than them . Intelligence can not just pops up and starts a life from zero thing .
.

I beg to differ with you on this point.

We do know what elements exist in other galaxies. We can tell precisely what every visible star is made of by the spectrum of its light.

No matter where we look in the unvierse, or how far back in time we look, we see basically same chemisty. So nothing is being assumed about that. That's already an astronomically observed fact.

I didn't make that up. I don't make things up about science.

You can check it out, if you like, but I'm totally confident that this is correct. I've taken several astrophysics courses, and they have all confirmed this with no hint of uncertainty.

I'll stand by this as a scientifically well-established fact.

They use the doppler-shift of the spectral lines of stars to measure the expansion rates, and the distances to far off galaxies. If those spectra were suddenly revealing a different chemistry that would be very interesting and well-documented science.

No such observations have ever been made, insofar as I'm aware.

All the stars and galaxies that have ever been measured are well within the basic chemsitry of the periodic table. So we have confirmed that this universe is both homogeneous (same elements) and isotopic (same in all directions) in terms of chemistry.

So this is already a well-established piece of data.



What other options are there pray tell?

Either this universe is by design or it's happenstance.

There are no other options.

Even if some 'structure' could be uncovered and shown to be the 'cause' of these things, that would still need to be a 'happenstance' structure unless it was by design because that's precisely what happenstance means (i.e. not by design)

So there are no other options by the purest definition of the term.

Happenstance, means, "Not by design".

So if you find a structure that you can attribute as a 'cause', then taking just one tiny step further ahead, you'd have to confess that the structure itself was necessarily happenstance, unless it was even further 'caused' by yet another structure, or 'design'.

It's tortoises all the way down.

This universe is either happenstance, or design.

There are no other options.

That's certainly the way things appear to be from "Inside the box of this universe".

However, we already know that once we go "outside the box of this universe" what we consider to be "logical" no longer applies.

How do we know that? From Quantum Mechanics.

It's in the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics. I find it fruitless to even attempt to communicate this fact to people on this forum. It's in the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics.

Listen to the words of Richard Feynman a Noble Prize winner in Quantum Electrodynamics:

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Dr. Richard P. Feynman

Realize that when he speaks of "Quantum Mechanics" he's talking about the mathematical model that we use to describe what we actually see happening.

What is he saying?

That no one can understand the mathematical model?

I don't think so! You don't win a Noble Prize for not understanding the mathematics.

What he's saying here is that the behavior that is being described defies logic as we know it.

So if we accept this scientific model as being correct (and it currently is accepted as a pillar of modern science)

Then we have no choice but to conclude that the reality of this universe runs on a different "logic" than what we deem to be reasonable.

So when you say that "Intelligence can not just pops up and starts a life from zero thing"

Why should we accept your word for this?

There are already a lot of things that the quantum particles do that defy logic and they behave like that all the time.

So what we consider to be 'logical' may not apply "outside" of this physical universe.

Things like TIME itself may be a bogus notion altogether. That would clearly put a dent in our 'logical reasoning' that's based on 'cause and effect'

In fact, your whole objection is based on an idea that something "started" something. But the very notion of "start" is an idea of TIME. (i.e. Before it was started, and after it had been started)

Maybe there is no such thing as TIME. Where does that leave our notion of logic? Up the creek without a paddle or a boat.

Well this was a productive thread for me. I've actually come up with an argument of why it would be utterly ludicous to consider anything other than Intelligent Design.

I don't feel like typing it in right now. Maybe tomorrow.

With a few minor exceptions (paricularly those noted by Abra) I agree. By the very nature of what science is and does, it cannot determine a creator/designer. Its sole function is to examine and classify the contents of “the box”. That’s as far as it can go. It can never determine the cause, or even the structure, of the box itself because of the simple fact that anything it discovers is determined to be, by its own definition, “inside” the box.

As Bushi has pointed out on numerous occasions, science defines “physical” as “that which interacts”. And what does it interact with? The content’s of the box. In other words, “the box” itself is defined by the laws of physics.

Now what I’ve been trying to say all along is that there are scientifically demonstrable “subjective interactions” that completely defy all known laws of physics, and thus those interactions are, by definition, “outside the box”, so science is stumped. It cannot categorize these phenomena because the box itself does not encompass them.

All that science can do is conclude that they don’t have an accurate picture of the box. But they too often take it a step farther and start saying things like “it must be in the box because everything else we’ve ever discovered is inside the box.” And that, to me, is the fundamental fallacy. It is the exact same fallacy that has been at the root of all opposition to scientific achievement throughout history.

In short, since the subjective interactions do not follow the laws of physics, then attempting to measure those interactions using those current laws of physics, is necessarily an exercise in futility, so there must be some other laws adopted in order to measure those subjective interactions.

And the problem there is one of overcoming the resistance to adopting new laws of physics to account for the observed phenomena. Just as it has always been.

Now to relate that to the question of creation and design of the universe…

Since it is known that subjective intent/purpose can alter physical reality, it seems reasonable to allow for the possibility that subjective intent/purpose can actually create and destroy physical reality as well. (Create and destroy meaning to cause to come into, or go out of, existence.)

The argument against that is essentially one of category and semantics. That is, when there is “change”, does the same thing exist only in a different form, or did the old thing go away and a new thing take it’s place? But that’s really a whole topic of it’s own. (Hmmmm…. A new thread is in the makings here.)

Well for what its worth, I totally agree and I declare that we have presented proof, evidence and logic that intelligent design is involved with the manifestation of this universe and everything in it.

That conclusion has not been accepted by the opposition. ( But then, they are still thinking inside of the box... that would be the entire physical universe.)

They are still sounding like a recording: "I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."I
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."I
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."

I see no evidence of intelligent design."
I see no evidence of intelligent design."

This is so profoundly true.

And this is where the totally unwarranted 'default' conclusion of 'no designer' comes from.

From the vantage point that you've just described it's utter nonsense to think in terms of a designer, because it's already being assumed that the box is 'all there is'.

The idea that they totally take the box itself for granted is what just blows me away.

But then, it's really little wonder, becasue this is precisely how physics is taught.

If you happen to have read one of my previous posts, I mentioned that one of my physics professors actually held a ball up in the air at the beginning of the course and clearly stated, "Science does not ask why the ball exists. Science merely describes the properties of the ball and how it moves."

So if you carry that to an extreme, science isn't even considering the box at all. All they are considering is the properties of the box itself. They will never discover the 'true nature' of the box that way. But that's perfectly alright. Because that was never their goal in the first place. Their only goal in the first place was to observe the box and describe it's properties and behavior.

That's all that science does.

This is why science does not "explain" anything. All it does is "describe" the behavior of things that are unexplainable.

Science has no right to even comment on whether or not there might be a designer of the box, because they aren't even geared up for considering that kind of question.

So anyone claiming that science 'favors' no-designer as a "default conclusion or assumption" simply doesn't even understand what science is.

If science has a default "opinion" on whether or not there is a designer of the box, that default opinion must simply be, "We have no clue, and our scientific method isn't even geared toward addressing that question at all. Period."

That would be the honest answer from any respectable scientist.

And that is precisely the answer that I would TEACH if I were teaching science classes today. If people ask me my "personal opinion" I'll tell them the same things that I suggested in this forum. I personally feel that the numbers favor design. But I most certainly would NOT teach that to a class as the scientific status quote. But I wouldn't teach that atheism is the status quo either. I would teach the the truth. Science simply isn't armed to shoot down that question.

That's the truth!

Well, either they aren't looking in a mirror.

OR,...

They are looking in a mirror and still aren't seeing any evidence of intelligent design.

Gee, I wish such an intelligent designer would create creatures capable of intelligent arguments...

Well, if you think that you're an example of such an intelligent being then it's settled. We've found evidence for intelligent design.

Otherwise, we'll have to look elsewhere for evidence of intelligent design I guess.



What more argument should be required?

So are you evidence for intelligent design, or should we look elsewhere?

_._._._._._._._._._ WOW!!! _. _._._._._ ._._._._._
So, we're _bastards -- NO DESIGNER???

I especially enjoyed Abra's argument about the car's designer. And, in support of that idea, I can also state the following:

A DESIGNED OBJECT REMAINS STATIC, i.e. IT DOES NOT EVOLVE!!!
Such an object always lacks Creativity...

(unless it has been designed as a self-improving mechanizm... )

Read the books...I didn't see the movies, so can't really comment on those, but the books were fantastic!

LOL

Actually the only thing that I have seen so far is that anyone who has a preconceived idea no matter how much intelligence they sport is stuck in the mud on their idea so badly that they find "proof" in the strangest places.

For those of us with the open minds waiting for the proof or evidence to seal the deal one way or the other are doomed to hang without any relief.

Oh please!

Everyone has "preconceived ideas" even you. Do you really think you have an open mind? Hey, my mind is open... wide open for ANY IDEAS you or anyone might come up with.

Problem is, you don't have any. You have nothing, and you are happy with nothing.

You who sit and "wait for proof or evidence" will be sitting and waiting forever while we, the bold and adventuresome go forth and solve problems and discover new worlds.

I keep waiting for you or anyone to tell me something besides "we just don't know" or "we just can't see..." or "we are waiting for evidence or proof.." or "we can't know..."

Don't assume that our minds are closed. Our minds are wide open and you have nothing to offer. Nothing, no ideas, no theories nothing but observations of what is. You have no answers and no ideas.

My conclusions are always temporary... I too wait for proof. Any kind of proof that will prove me wrong. You have none, and you have no solutions either.

My theory at least answers a lot of questions that you or science can't even come close to because they 'can't see.'