I'd like to know what a non-designed reality would be like.

If there can't be one, then "designed" just means "exists" in this context.

We have one reality, which we're bound into, and cannot objectively view externally. We have no realities to compare to. Trying to compare it to bits of itself is the fallacy of composition (among other things probably). It's a little bit like trying to show the bible is true, including what is written on the cover of a particular bible that we can't see, by showing bits of it are true.

PS: atheism is only "rebellious" in the sense that it's currently the minority position. It's not actually any more rebellious, philosophically, than disbelief in Santa.

(December 26, 2015 at 4:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: You think that I designed the rules of horse?  You're very generous, but alas, I did not.  That basketball is a designed game, that the court is designed, that the ball is designed........that all of these things are, as we know them, designed..and yet none of it can amount to a validation of your definition for the word is -precisely why- it is insufficient, and indistinguishable from my having found a rock in a field somewhere. I did not and could not have designed any of it, though I'm clearly capable of imposing those rules on a system, and of availing myself of designed things in that imposition.  This, again, is why an imposition doesn't imply what you think it does....even if you could show such an imposition, which you haven't.

What would your final statement even mean.....if basketball is a designed game in the same way that a rock is a designed object?  Not really saying much of anything, in that case, eh?

Imposed rules literally means design.
A statue has a design, so does it have imposed rules, imposed rules such as nose,eyes,their length,breadth etc.
A glass has a design, its shape, volume of water it can hold, are all imposed constraints. Which imply a design.

(December 26, 2015 at 9:23 am)robvalue Wrote: I'd like to know what a non-designed reality would be like.

If there can't be one, then "designed" just means "exists" in this context.

We have one reality, which we're bound into, and cannot objectively view externally. We have no realities to compare to. Trying to compare it to bits of itself is the fallacy of composition (among other things probably). It's a little bit like trying to show the bible is true, including what is written on the cover of a particular bible that we can't see, by showing bits of it are true.

PS: atheism is only "rebellious" in the sense that it's currently the minority position. It's not actually any more rebellious, philosophically, than disbelief in Santa.

Can you give your objections in a clear concise a sentence?
Like
1. I disagree about this point in your post.
2. This is also wrong.

A big paragraph is confusing with lots of noise of information which is hard for me to understand.

OK.

What would a non-designed reality be like?

Oh I know Sir I know

*Raises hand*

Like this one?

Pool, do you agree or not that there can be design without intent? In other words, can you have a non-teleological process, such as natural selection, that results in design?

(December 26, 2015 at 9:19 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Also, pool, your saying anything under imposed rule is designed and that our world is under imposed rule therefore designed. When I asked you if you thought that everything is designed, you said "No". This seems to be a contradiction, like I said before I'm not sure you know what your talking about. You always try to make up definitions and dress them up in a lot of gibberish to make it seem like your coming up with some deep smart position that nobody has thought of before, when really your just talking nonsense. Rhythm's Horse example clearly explains that even if you could establish imposed rules (which you can't) it still doesn't imply design.

1. That's not what you asked.

Quote:So your saying everything is designed? Nothing is naturally occurring?

This is what you asked.

2. This is exactly what happened when I made that thread which led me to Ignosticism. Everyone was like - "What a load a crap you're talking pool. This is bullshit. You're making up definitions. You're crazy. Did you forget to take your medication? What are you smoking?"
And then when rob said what I had thought of was a real thing called Ignosticism everyone that said I was crazy were nowhere to be seen. No "Oh you were rightsies" No "I didn't know that was a real thingsies" No nothing. Haha.

He said a random process can count as design, which is bizarre to me. However, I still don't see evidence that there was even a random process that "designed" this universe. Design is a verb, but it doesn't seem to be being used like one.

(December 26, 2015 at 10:08 am)robvalue Wrote: OK.

What would a non-designed reality be like?

I don't know.

So how do you know this isn't one?