Let’s break this down and look at the necessary requirements.

First off, there is “to be shown”. This requires perception (of what is shown). And since the OP has explicitly positioned himself as the object, the process of being shown is dependent on his personal perception.

Additionally, according to the OP’s long-standing position, perception is inherently unreliable for determining “actuality”, which means that the actuality of the evidence is indeterminate and thus irrelevant.

So the required process is dependent on the OP’s personal perception.

Secondly, the evidence must be evaluated. And because of the use of the first person pronoun “I”, the explicit requirement is that the OP must do the evaluation of the evidence.

So the required process is dependent on the OP’s evaluations.

Thirdly, there is “I want”. This requires the fulfillment of a personal desire. And again, because of the first person pronoun, the explicit requirement is that personal desires of the OP (to be shown…) must be fulfilled.

So the required process is dependent on the OP’s desire.

Finally, there is the complete phrase “I want to be shown”. This requires another entity. That is, there must be one entity that “shows” and another entity that “is shown”.

So the required process is dependent on a second entity.


And thus we arrive at the crucial question I have:

“Exactly what is it that is dependent on the second entity?”

It can’t be the actuality of the evidence.

It can’t be the perception of the evidence.

It can’t be the evaluation of the evidence.

It can’t be the want.

It can't be the creator

It can't be the universe.

So what exactly is it that is dependent on the second entity???

Please specify.

Ok.

Can you write in standard form? Topic sentence(s) accompanied with developmental ones forming a paragraph? It is an unnecessary eye strain to read your poetic form without ryhme.



I'll show you what I see in this.

It is an appeal to emotion. Specifically, this invokes the idea of self-worth by equating happenstance to worthlessness and design to something of value. It jerks the emotional strings using an invalid argumentative form. That form contemplates two ideas for our existence, the big bang and a designer of the universe. Without logical support, you falsely attribute negative qualities to those individuals who do not feel the need to believe that the universe is designed, and therefore we are intelligently designed as well. You equate being designed to having worth, and the contrary to worthlessness. It is wrongful thinking.

The claim is that a person who does not have a desire(the same as you) for the universe to have a designer "must be truly empty and devoid of any and all emotion and desire to not care."

For the above to be true - in order for one to 'care', they must have the desire to feel as though there is some purpose in life greater than just being a human through evolution. Anyone who does not share this desire, must be emotionally empty. Your equating the existence of emotional content in an individual to the belief in an intelligent designer.

That is false.



I saw that as well. I have a question. How can anything be ruled out without proving it to be(logically showing why it should be left out)?

That idea is nonsense.



Of course it is easier for you to rule out happenstance, your feeling of self-worth depends on that. Do you not see the problem with equating your own self-worth to the idea of being a creature from design? It automatically skews your perspective in such a way that feeling trumps all else. How you feel about something depends upon how you portray it. Then you define being designed with good feelings and define not being designed with terrible ones, how could you possibly allow yourself to accept anything other than being a product of a designer? Any conscious deliberation to the contrary makes you feel worthless. That discreprancy is called cognitive dissonance.



The first supposed 'problem' rests on false grounds.

The mathematics may require other universes/dimensions in order to account for the apparent deficiency in observable mass in this one. The same requirement is not met with the invocation of a designer. Since an assessment of equal absurdity depends upon the relevant evidence equally contradicting the conclusion(s), those two ideas are not equally absurd.



This is false. If it were known that evolution "started too quickly" the theory would be canned. It has not been. In fact everything we learn in biology has further supported it.



Where is this evidence that points to the universe having been designed?



Let's look at this line of 'reasoning'. Here is what is necessitates, in order for it to be valid/true.

For one to care about anything one must place more value(meaning) in the idea of being a creature of design than the idea that the universe started by the big bang.

I can think of plenty of examples to the contrary, and I can think of plenty of heartless examples of those who believe that they are the product of an intelligent designer as well.

The idea is false, as are all emotional appeals.



Labeling what may be the truth as a waste is wrongful thinking and has an invalid form. Accidents require that a result be unintended. The only way this universe could be an accident is if the designer screwed up. Big bang has no reason, intent, nor purpose. Your wrongfully labeling things here, and in doing so are not assessing what is...



One question here.

How does the big bang equate to meaningless garbage and the idea of being a product of a designer equate to being meaningful?

Ill turn that one around. If you look in the mirror and that is all you need to conclude there is a designer, then indeed no need to go on. You should excuse yourself.

Intersting perspective. It would seem to mean that neither version of that argument is sufficiently conclusive to either side, since both sides continued.

Just an observation.

Fail. Ad Hominem.



Fail. Ad Hominem.



Fail. Ad Hominem.



Fail. Ad Hominem.



Fail. Ad Hominem.



Fail. Ad Hominem.



Fail. Ad Hominem.



Could it be that someone just likes to argue against anything that might even remotely suggests that the universe might be more than just a happenstance accident?

It's a piece of cake to claim that a particular belief should be accepted as the "default conlusion" until evidence can be shown otherwise.

But that whole approach is an empty delusion right there.

The real question is this: "Is anyone genuinely interested in considering actual evidence (which was given), or are they just bent on taking a particular stance at all cost irregardless of any evidence that might be presented?"

I'm agostic which always seems to be totally ignored.

I'm not claiming that spirit exists.

All I'm doing is sharing my understanding of these problems after a lifetime of commitment to them without any bias toward the outcome.

I have considered happenstance as a possibility. The evidence just doesn't stand up to scrutinty.

The evidence for design is overwhelming.

Even so, I still haven't come to a final conclusion. I'm just reporting that as far as I'm concerned the evidence for design far outweighs the evidence for happenstance.

And these even holds true if we assume the existence of infinitely many "failed" universes to explain the freak happenstance of this one. Even that hypothesis doesn't hold water because there are probability conflict even within this unvierse.

Life took hold far too quickly on planet Earth to "indicate" or "imply" happenstance.

Could it have happened that quickly and still have been happenstance?

Yes, it's possible. But highly improbable.

Moreover, given all the other evidence available, the evidence for design overwhelms the evidence for happenstance.

Happenstance would have required many extremely unlikely coincidences to have happened simultaneously in a very timely and orderly fashion in order for life to have evolved on Planet Earth. We're talking about the freakiest of freakiest combination of extremely rare event of random accidents.

So for this universe to be happenstance it would indeed be a miracle.

I really don't care.

Like Sky points out, trying to show the OP something that he is clearly determined not to believe is silly in the first place.

Rather than looking at anything that is being offered as being potentially interesting he just brushes everything off as meaningless and trivial.

So, in truth, he clearly does not want to be shown any evidence for anything. All he wants to do is pretend that there is no such evidence. And to pretend that assuming Happenstance as the default assumption somehow makes sense, when in fact, it doesn't.

Here is the most common argument given thus far.

Designers exist in nature, therefore it is logical to conclude that the universe is designed, and therefore we must conclude that there is a designer of the universe.

1.)Designers exist.

2.)The universe exists.

3.)The universe was designed.

4.)A design requires a designer.





In order for this to be a valid form, there must be some direct logical connection that necessitates that 3.) follow from 1.) and 2.), and that has not been shown.

Just because designers exist in the universe, it does not follow that that the universe is a design any more than the idea that because accidents happen in the universe it must be an accident. Substitute the known identity of designer with any other known identity and you will have the same argumentative form.

It is invalid/wrong.

Calling the universe a design, does not make it so and begs the question. The first question is can we identify a designer to attribute what we are labeling as a design?

We see a bird's nest... we know the source. We call it a design.

We see a spiderweb... we know it's source. We call it a design.

We see the universe... we do not know it's source. We cannot call it a design.

I disagree. Intention was not proven by what you wrote here.

Some of us have intention, some of us don't.

And the fact we might have intention doesn't prove intention universally.

Would that be the same evidence that I have been logically countering without recognition, or is there more to consider?

Being emotionally vested into a belief system renders the mind a slave to it.

Not merely A designer. Many designers.




No, the logic goes like this:

1. Design exists.
(It is 'design' because it has purpose, and because we say it is. And it is we, the observers, who determine and define what reality and design is.)

2. Designers exist. (We know this because we see them and we see their designs and we see that their designs have purpose.)

3 The Universe IS being designed. (Not "was" designed because there is no past present or future except in the mind. Also IS BEING DESIGNED because in the face of infinity, if it was not constantly being designed, it would have passed away billions of years ago.

4. A design with purpose requires a designer with intent.

5. A designer with intent is intelligent.





Your logic is flawed, your form is flawed.



Wrong. The bird instinctively knows how to build a nest. The nest is built instinctively and automatically. The bird did not go to nest building school to learn this skill. The bird draws its knowledge and intelligence and creativity from an intelligent creative group mind with memories -- which connects it to information collected from other birds of that same species.

Yes we can. We are the decider's, we are the designers, we are the source.

Take back your power. Stop giving it away.

I am not 'emotionally vested' into any belief system, therefore you must be talking about yourself. My conclusions are based on the weight of the OVERWHELMING evidence that you cannot see.

Sky wrote:



Obviously.



Being unreliable does not equate to always being wrong. The relevance of the evidence is shown through logical connections between it and what it supposedly supports.



Being shown evidence requires(in this case) someone to present the evidence, that evidence to be assessed(which is completely open for counter-arguments), and a conclusion to be drawn based upon the assessment.

Evidence has been given. I have logically countered without response. In those counters, I used the evidence presented which was claimed to support the existence of a designer, to show otherwise.




A valid form of reasoning which supports the conclusion that a designer exists. That form must include evidence which is relevant and necessitates the conclusion. That is what is being asked for. Evidence of a designer must identify the source of the universe, if we are to reasonably call the universe a design. There is no other way to logically/rightfully call this universe a design.

Since everything follows strict rules then there must be there a blue print made by someone or some ones . Look how every human is different but the same in organs, enzymes......etc .

Where?

Please show me where you have 'logically' countered the evidence I presented.

JB wrote:



No time... No space... no existence... no beginning... no end...

Yet here we are!



This argument goes against so many knowns. It is not even reasonable to consider. It attempts to defines away fact in lieu of personal belief, which supports itself through circular reasoning.

In my version:

1. Thing(s) exist.

2. If these things are designs, then a designer exists, but there is no way for sure to find out if the things are designs, happenstances, or just have been existing forever.

-------------

Another way of looking at how (A) the world is not necessary a design:

1. Let's assume our world is a design, done by a designer.

2. We take the basic laws and change them, according to totally chance ways of changing them.

3. The universe will not collapse and become meaningless. In fact, if it does, that'll be momentary. The new laws will work around each other to come up with creating new movements, the type that did not exist in a designed universe.

4. Therefore having law and order in a universe does not necessitate that the law and order and things have been designed.

5. Our universe is operating on a set of laws and it is orderly.

6. Therefore (A) is true, that is, it is true that our universe is not necessarily a creation by design.

You always claim to have countered things when in fact you have never done any such thing.

You're claim that there is an emotional investment entirely your own assumption.

From my point of view you appear to be emotionally vested in the idea that the universe is happenstance. You sure argue from that perspective passionately enough.

There are clearly reasons why people could be emotionally vested in a happenstance universe. To believe in such an ideal relieves a person from any and all responsibility. For all I know, you could be suffering from extreme guilt complexes that are driving you to have a desperate need to negate any idea that you might actually need to answer for your actions in some afterlife.

So why should I be concerned with your unwarranted accusations that other people are any more emotionally invested in their views than you are with yours? From my point of view you appear to be extremely deserate for atheism to be true. So much so that you appear to have completely blinded yourself from considering anything that might even remotely challenge that ideal.

I don't know whether I would be better off just ceasing to exist when I die, or continuing to live on to have to answer to some higher entity.

I might not like having to answer to some higher entity.

I have no clue which one might be "better" for me on a personal level.

But I do hold that if this universe is just random happenstance event it's a total waste of some pretty spectacular potential.

That is true even if happenstance could be proven beyond a doubt. It would still be a sad state of affairs just for that reason alone.

Just the same, the evidence I gave was all quite sound. Not based on emotion at all.

It's just the facts.

The scientific knowledge that we already have of this universe supports the idea that this universe is driven by intelligently designed forces. Also the hypothesis of happenstance just doesn't hold up under close scrutiny when all the evidence is considered.

Those are just the hard core facts. No emotion required.

And you haven't 'countered' any of them. None.

Are you a glutton for punishment or what?

I'm bored with this...

Be well peoples!

Hey!! You can't quit now!? I just joined in.

I was at a chiropractor this morning. He said my joints are all right, it's my tendonds that bother me.

We smoked a joint after that.(*)

And I paid him $100.

---------

(*) This is not true. I don't do drugs other than coffeine. No nicotine, no alcohol. Nothing else, either. Only prescription drugs, and nutrients.