The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Mister Agenda]

If you can't tell the difference between design and no design, you've got no basis to claim anything we don't know for a fact was designed, was designed. Especially things for which we understand the natural processes that result in them which don't require a conscious designer pretty well.

[zebo-the-fat]

At this point (probably should have asked this earlier in the thread), I think what we need from you, is how you go about detecting when something is designed, and when it isn't.

Please list the method(s) and steps you use to determine a designed thing from a non designed thing.

There is none, there is no distinction. This was precisely my point. Literally nothing in this earth belongs to us, nothing, everything is either created ex nihilo by an agent/cause or was always there. And because these things display appearances of complexity, design, etc, this makes it more probable than not that the agent in question is intelligent, and meant for the end result to happen.

Appearance of design is the very definition of design. What we usually consider to be cleverly designed machines is a combination of matter that doesn't belong to us in a way that is useful to a set of people, in other words, assigning design to something is actually a subjective issue; it's not difficult to see that there is no intrinsic property of design that we can assign to objects around us. It's really a matter of nomenclature.

---

Interesting how this wonderful, all knowing, all powerful god seems unable to sort out this covid thing that's going on, you would think a tiny little virus would be simple for him to fix. Maybe he just doesn't care anymore or possibly he is just a made up fantasy.

Worse things happen in this world and God lets them happen. The occurence of bad stuff is not a valid argument for God's nonexistence. If there were no evil, one cannot be grateful for what he has. After all, there are ungrateful people even with the presence of evil.

If your wonderful god could fix it and doesn't then he does not deserve to be worshipped

[Angrboda]

To be charitable, I think he has a point that design is a question of mental operations, intent, if that was his point. The objects or artifacts are the result, but it is the presence or absence of a subjective state by an agent as to whether design has occurred. If I trip and break a vase, that's not design.

That being said, the problems with the rest of his claim are legion, but the most important are, as Mister Agenda stated, needing a reference class of things that aren't designed, and second, defining what the appearance of design is, if it indeed exists. Klorophyll believes the latter is relatively straightforward, but he's obviously been reading a bunch of similarly minded morons who really don't know what they're talking about. Defining an appearance of design is a challenging task, and the state of play is that no one has succeeded there, though morons like Klorophyll with little competence and understanding often think otherwise. This question has been plumbed ad nauseum by much smarter minds and found lacking. But hope springs eternal for idiots and creationists.

[R00tKiT]

If you can't tell the difference between design and no design, you've got no basis to claim anything we don't know for a fact was designed, was designed. Especially things for which we understand the natural processes that result in them which don't require a conscious designer pretty well.

I think you misunderstood my answer. The usual meaning of design is vacuous. There is only created matter -or matter that was always there, if you have a problem with the word created-, things that we call "designed" are combinations of this same matter, which clearly doesn't belong to us.

A verse in the Qur'an mirrors this meaning : (49-4): Do ye see what it is ye invoke besides Allah. Show me what it is they have created on earth.

So, it's not really a problem of telling the difference of design and non design, it's about whether anything is actually designed.

I should presume that you think a tree is not designed. Why do you consider it so? It serves some sophisticated functions, like absorbing pollutant gases. Are you restricting design to human design ? If so, then your definition is discriminatory to begin with. If not, then literally everything out there is design, in other words, design simply means existence.

If your wonderful god could fix it and doesn't then he does not deserve to be worshipped

If God fixes every tiny virus out there this world will simply be heaven. The theistic god doesn't intend for this life to be heavenly. So your objection doesn't make sense.

[Apollo]

And here all this time I thought OP was working on the math for the god particle—I guess mot. I am glad I didn’t hold my breath.

[Angrboda]

If you can't tell the difference between design and no design, you've got no basis to claim anything we don't know for a fact was designed, was designed. Especially things for which we understand the natural processes that result in them which don't require a conscious designer pretty well.

I think you misunderstood my answer. The usual meaning of design is vacuous. There is only created matter -or matter that was always there, if you have a problem with the word created-, things that we call "designed" are combinations of this same matter, which clearly doesn't belong to us.

A verse in the Qur'an mirrors this meaning : (49-4): Do ye see what it is ye invoke besides Allah. Show me what it is they have created on earth.

So, it's not really a problem of telling the difference of design and non design, it's about whether anything is actually designed.

I should presume that you think a tree is not designed. Why do you consider it so? It serves some sophisticated functions, like absorbing pollutant gases. Are you restricting design to human design ? If so, then your definition is discriminatory to begin with. If not, then literally everything out there is design, in other words, design simply means existence.

Creation doesn't necessarily indicate design. If it does, then your concept of design is also vacuous. In that case "design" is not a property, and your entire argument collapses. You're anthropomorphizing your god, which IIRC, is a no-no in Islam. (ETA: It also occurs to me that God didn't create anything either, but simply converted his potency into matter. Without the raw material of God's potency, there would be no matter. So nothing is created and one way or another, everything, whether God or the universe, were just eternally existing things under this view. So you've essentially eviscerated both the concept of design, and your god's claim to any obligation from us or rights he has toward us. Allah is just another cog in the machine that is everything.)

[zebo-the-fat]

If you can't tell the difference between design and no design, you've got no basis to claim anything we don't know for a fact was designed, was designed. Especially things for which we understand the natural processes that result in them which don't require a conscious designer pretty well.

I think you misunderstood my answer. The usual meaning of design is vacuous. There is only created matter -or matter that was always there, if you have a problem with the word created-, things that we call "designed" are combinations of this same matter, which clearly doesn't belong to us.

A verse in the Qur'an mirrors this meaning : (49-4): Do ye see what it is ye invoke besides Allah. Show me what it is they have created on earth.

So, it's not really a problem of telling the difference of design and non design, it's about whether anything is actually designed.

I should presume that you think a tree is not designed. Why do you consider it so? It serves some sophisticated functions, like absorbing pollutant gases. Are you restricting design to human design ? If so, then your definition is discriminatory to begin with. If not, then literally everything out there is design, in other words, design simply means existence.

If your wonderful god could fix it and doesn't then he does not deserve to be worshipped

If God fixes every tiny virus out there this world will simply be heaven. The theistic god doesn't intend for this life to be heavenly. So your objection doesn't make sense.

I see nothing in this god that makes it worth worshiping, he may as well not exist (probably does not exist anyway!)

[Simon Moon]

At this point (probably should have asked this earlier in the thread), I think what we need from you, is how you go about detecting when something is designed, and when it isn't.

Please list the method(s) and steps you use to determine a designed thing from a non designed thing.

There is none, there is no distinction. This was precisely my point. Literally nothing in this earth belongs to us, nothing, everything is either created ex nihilo by an agent/cause or was always there. And because these things display appearances of complexity, design, etc, this makes it more probable than not that the agent in question is intelligent, and meant for the end result to happen.

Appearance of design is the very definition of design. What we usually consider to be cleverly designed machines is a combination of matter that doesn't belong to us in a way that is useful to a set of people, in other words, assigning design to something is actually a subjective issue; it's not difficult to see that there is no intrinsic property of design that we can assign to objects around us. It's really a matter of nomenclature.

So many problems here, not sure where to start...


First of all, complexity is NOT a hallmark of design. Competent engineers strive for simplicity not complexity.

Second, we recognize design by contrasting them to things that occur naturally, not by their complexity.

And just because something has the appearance of design, does not mean it is designed.

According to your 'method', the following, purely naturally occurring, weathered rock formations are all designed, but they are provabley not.

[Fake Messiah]

And because these things display appearances of complexity, design, etc, this makes it more probable than not that the agent in question is intelligent,

It doesn't mean that if something is complex that it is inteligently designed.

What we usually consider to be cleverly designed machines is a combination of matter that doesn't belong to us in a way that is useful to a set of people, in other words, assigning design to something is actually a subjective issue

No, it is actually very objective. If we see in nature some "cleverly designed machine" like a clock, we know that it is man-made because 1st we know that humans make them, and 2nd it’s because nobody ever observed a clock giving birth to the baby clock, and nobody so far observed in nature fossils of “primitive” clocks upon which today’s clocks evolved. So that’s the main difference of how we know that biological beings evolved and machines were made by man.

it's not difficult to see that there is no intrinsic property of design that we can assign to objects around us.

It doesn’t mean that if there is no intelligent designer that there is no "designer" because nature, from rocks to animals and humans, is designed by natural processes. That’s why rocks/ cliffs look one way in the desert, and the other way under the sea—because they follow the pattern of natural processes that can even be predicted, like when people design alien planets for SF movies.

[R00tKiT]

Creation doesn't necessarily indicate design.  If it does, then your concept of design is also vacuous.  In that case "design" is not a property, and your entire argument collapses.  You're anthropomorphizing your god, which IIRC, is a no-no in Islam.

I think you misunderstand what my concept of design actually is; it is creation itself. I don't draw any distinction between clever combinations of matter/nature [e.g. machines] and matter/nature in its initial form. But you do, so you are the one who has problems with the concept of design here, not me.

It also occurs to me that God didn't create anything either, but simply converted his potency into matter.  Without the raw material of God's potency, there would be no matter.

Nonsense. Potency is a property of God, not some material external to God. An omnipotent God, by his potency -rather than (((converts))) potency-, creates matter ex nihilo.

Your only way out is to somehow prove that ex nihilo creation is logically impossible. Good luck.

So nothing is created and one way or another, everything, whether God or the universe, were just eternally existing things under this view.  So you've essentially eviscerated both the concept of design, and your god's claim to any obligation from us or rights he has toward us.  Allah is just another cog in the machine that is everything.)

More nonsense resulting from the misunderstanding above.

First of all, complexity is NOT a hallmark of design. Competent engineers strive for simplicity not complexity.

I didn't claim anywhere that complexity logically implies design, it only increases its probability. It's the appearance of adaptation of means to ends that points to design. And your remark about competent engineers is misplaced, the latter deal with a finite amount of matter, so efficiency is important. A deity doesn't have this concern. Paleophyte already made this mistake, you might want to go back and read all the replies.

Second, we recognize design by contrasting them to things that occur naturally,

If so, then your definition of design is meaningless. If you already exclude things that occur naturally from the realm of designed things, then you're begging the question of whether nature is designed or not -you already answered no by choosing such a discriminatory definition.
That's really ..dumb.. if you think about it.

And just because something has the appearance of design, does not mean it is designed.

According to your 'method', the following, purely naturally occurring, weathered rock formations are all designed, but they are provabley not.

As I said above, your definition of design is very problematic. Until you provide a better one, the issue of whether these rock formation are designed or not should be put aside for a while.

---

It doesn't mean that if something is complex that it is inteligently designed.

I didn't say complexity strictly implies design. It does increase the probability that the thing at hand is designed.

No, it is actually very objective. If we see in nature some "cleverly designed machine" like a clock, we know that it is man-made because 1st we know that humans make them, and 2nd it’s because nobody ever observed a clock giving birth to the baby clock, and nobody so far observed in nature fossils of “primitive” clocks upon which today’s clocks evolved. So that’s the main difference of how we know that biological beings evolved and machines were made by man.

I am not sure how many times I will be repeating this : you are already excluding biological beings from the definition of design. therefore you're begging the question of whether they are designed or not.

It doesn’t mean that if there is no intelligent designer that there is no "designer" because nature, from rocks to animals and humans, is designed by natural processes. That’s why rocks/ cliffs look one way in the desert, and the other way under the sea—because they follow the pattern of natural processes that can even be predicted, like when people design alien planets for SF movies.

Again, nothing excludes the possibility of a designer creating stuff through these very natural processes. Therefore, rocks and cliffs that follow these processes can be the intention of a designer all along, or at least a byproduct of his master plan.