Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Esquilax]

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'm not sure what you are asking for here.   What do you mean by in nature?  

Well, if your contention is that specified complexity exists within the natural world, surely you would have had to observe specified complexity in nature to make that assertion, yes? I mean, if you hadn't observed it and were asserting that it exists anyway, that's indistinguishable from just making things up. You could make that claim equally about things that exist and things that do not, because the content isn't reliant on whether anybody has ever actually observed it.

So... you don't think you could tell the difference between a spaceship on mars and a bunch of rock?  

Not if it was my position that the spaceship was designed, but that the rocks were also designed by god, and the planet those rocks were on was designed by god, and the universe containing all of this was designed by god, while I looked upon it all with my designed eyes, situated in my designed head, atop my designed body, interpreting the data via a designed brain loaded with all the information of my- totally designed and according to god's plan- culture's history.

What's essentially happening is that you're picking up one designed thing in an environment of one hundred percent designed objects and saying that it looks so different from all these natural things (which are designed) that it has to have been designed. How could you ever come to that determination if it was your view that everything that exists came about as the result of god's purposeful design?