Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Esquilax]

The exact definition or limit of what is specified is difficult to nail down. Precisely, because the specification changes and we may not always know why it's specified.  I would point out that the demarcation of science has historically also been a difficult to set exact restrictions on.  Would you say, because we cannot find an exact limit of science that science has no real life examples?

How can you possibly assert that a thing exists in nature if you're unable to provide an example of it? Shouldn't you already have an example in mind, if you think it exists?

I do think that we can tell the difference between a birds nest, and a bunch of sticks that fell to the ground from natural forces.  Or if a structure was found on Mars, we could possibly tell it's difference from naturally eroding rock (even if the structure is unfamiliar).   Similarly we can tell the difference between radio signals, and naturally occurring electro-magnetic radiation.  The SETI research is relying on this.

How would you determine the difference between the eroded rock and the structure on Mars if you think the structure was designed, and the rock was designed, and everything else in the universe was designed?