Here's why Creatards might be right

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know where you're coming from Pooley.
The answer is "Nature is our blind designer".

She designs squillions of silly things that don't work. What happens? They die off.

Whenever I see a cute squirrel hopping from branch to branch, I have to think of the millions of poor proto-squirrels who had to fall off and break their necks in order for today's optimized squirrels to evolve. It's heartbreaking, really.

I had one of those last year at the Nature Preserve, still holding the branch the strength of which he misjudged. Fell fifty or more feet to his death. Not for the squeamish:

---

---

[Cato]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgekmOqCFTU

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Imagine a motorcycle.
When we turn the accelerator the motorcycle moves forward.
Why does the motorcycle move forward?
The motorcycle moves forward because the motorcycle was designed to move forward when someone turn the accelerator.

Now imagine yourself.
When you walk forward you move forward.
Why do you move forward when you walk towards that direction?
We move forward when we walk towards that direction because we were designed to move forward when we walk towards that direction.
Designed by who? I honestly have no idea

You can relate this example with literally everything that happens in our daily life

See the Third Law here.

I totally understand what you're trying to tell me. But science cannot explain why's of the natural world.

Are you familiar with programming?
If you look at this piece of code you will better understand what I'm trying to say:

void main()
{
int x=5,y;
printf("Enter a number: ");
scanf("%d",&y);
printf("The number is %d.",y+x);
}

This function is like our natural world. After a few try's we'd be able to figure out that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. This is what science does. Science make observations and derive conclusions. What science cannot do is why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. The only answer is - it's how it's always have been.
Our world is like that function. We have no clue why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give. The only thing we know is that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give through observation.

You get me? I have the idea in my head but I'm having trouble communicating it in a way people would normally do. :/

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sure we could come up with a "why" that science can't answer...but we wont find any of those questions in programming code.  There is no "why" question regarding the operation of a computer that tech schems of the hardware won't answer for you.  If you didn't have the schems...you'd be in for an exhausting battery on single channel tests...but the why would present itself in this manner just as surely.  Incredibly sophisticated machines have been reverse engineered (notably in war, for example) even though they often start at a position of ignorance regarding the question of why the machine would return any specific output (or even how).

[houseofcantor]

Isn't that what philosophy is for? Worrying about the why? It's such a subjective mess it is no wonder that science doesn't concern itself with it, unless there's an underlying "how" that can be discovered.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Isn't that what philosophy is for? Worrying about the why? It's such a subjective mess it is no wonder that science doesn't concern itself with it, unless there's an underlying "how" that can be discovered.

It's not really that much of a subjective mess if you look at it with a clear head.

Tell me this, did you have trouble figuring out the "why" of the number that was displayed after "The number is " is 5 time more than the number given as an input? Probably not.

The only logical explanation in that scenario would be that it was predesigned(Just like in the code).

This is actually quite weird. I seem to be able to communicate more efficiently using a programming language. ahhahahahahahahha

[Thumpalumpacus]

See the Third Law here.

I totally understand what you're trying to tell me. But science cannot explain why's of the natural world.

Are you familiar with programming?
If you look at this piece of code you will better understand what I'm trying to say:

void main()
{
int x=5,y;
printf("Enter a number: ");
scanf("%d",&y);
printf("The number is %d.",y+x);
}

This function is like our natural world. After a few try's we'd be able to figure out that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. This is what science does. Science make observations and derive conclusions. What science cannot do is why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. The only answer is - it's how it's always have been.
Our world is like that function. We have no clue why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give. The only thing we know is that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give through observation.

You get me? I have the idea in my head but I'm having trouble communicating it in a way people would normally do. :/

I'm not conversant with programming at all, so your example doesn't parse for me.

I will refer you to my earlier point that science doesn't address purpose. You may as well hammer a nail with a fish taco -- you're using the wrong tool for the job, and then complaining that the tool ain't getting the job done.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is actually quite weird. I seem to be able to communicate more efficiently using a programming language. ahhahahahahahahha

I don't think that's the case.

Additionally, by invoking programming, you're insinuating ID when you haven't shown it to be the case in nature. That's the nub of your problem here, I think: By looking at it as a programmer, you are introducing an unquestioned premise.

[Alex K]

---

See the Third Law here.

I totally understand what you're trying to tell me. But science cannot explain why's of the natural world.

Are you familiar with programming?
If you look at this piece of code you will better understand what I'm trying to say:

void main()
{
int x=5,y;
printf("Enter a number: ");
scanf("%d",&y);
printf("The number is %d.",y+x);
}

This function is like our natural world. After a few try's we'd be able to figure out that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. This is what science does. Science make observations and derive conclusions. What science cannot do is why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. The only answer is - it's how it's always have been.
Our world is like that function. We have no clue why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give. The only thing we know is that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give through observation.

You get me? I have the idea in my head but I'm having trouble communicating it in a way people would normally do. :/

---

Yes I understand - that actually makes sense. We would eventually discover the fundamental law of physics "y+5", and unless we find deviations from it, that would be the end point of our search. However, since in reality one always measures with finite resolution and since one can never enter all possible numbers y to cross-check the theory with the black box (nature), the possibility always remains open that something new might await us - you can never know that you have found the ultimate rule. For example, 10 years later we might discover that it is actually closer to

printf("The number is %f.",(y+x)/(1+y/100000000000000.));

But then we'll still never know whether that is now the final answer. It might be even worse - we discover that the answer we get depends on other things we do, that don't seem to be captured by a single simple function. (I am mimicking here the progression from Newtonian physics (your example) to Relativity and quantum physics, respectively)

It is a deep question of philosophy of science whether such a final true rule as you propose it above exists in nature - one towards which our discovered laws of physics converge. The question is not clear at all.

[Alex K]

The only logical explanation in that scenario would be that it was predesigned(Just like in the code).

No, that conclusion is BS