₦airaland Forum

DeSepiero:
All the argument - to what end?

1. Enjoyment
2. Enlightenment
3. Joy of convincing others
4. Need to share your thought.

Everyone has their own reason for engaging and the process of engaging.

iamdannyfc:
do not forget this thread, my curiosity led me to reading the 2nd part

I'd definitely continue brother

shadeyinka:
In programming, there is what is called code reuse: where a working code snippet is grafted into a new code rather than rewriting everything from the scratch.

Hence we humans have similarities with other living organisms in being made up of cells, red blood cells, sight, hearings, etc all these are not exclusive to humans.

A car and a phone can be made of the same material, this isn't really saying much.


My question is; Are you saying humans were artistically created or designed from from the scratch?

I believe you are not been clear enough with your points

LordReed:
I never said transformation indicates agency. Read what I wrote again.

"The materials used to make a phone under went a transformative process, without agency that would not have occurred."

Here you go.

Yes you can distinguish between transformations that require agency and those that don't as long as you allow that the natural physical laws are not agents or representatives of agency or else everything is designed and there is no useful distinction.

The question is, how do you recognize these distinctions?

I already mentioned the 2 ways we recognise design and as you pointed out, design implies agency.

Oh design implies agency alright, I'm still trying to understand how you recognize this agency hence design.

You haven't been able to show me this well enough.

When you say things like 1 transformation example follows natural laws, 1 doesn't, how did you conclude this? What does it mean?

Because when you look at a phone and say that the transformations in its materials did not happen through natural process (which we would assume for now precludes intent) you are by implication suggesting there are things you observe on this object that suggests these materials didn't follow the same natural transformation process - Design.

That's basically what i want to know.

shadeyinka:
Humans were created from templates

How, please explain.

LordReed:
Nope. Because the process involved in this transformation is natural ie following natural laws.

But both are Transformation processes of which you suggested implied agency?

I think we can agree now that transformation doesn't necessarily connote agency then.

I don't think there is any process of transformation you can think of now that don't follow natural laws though.

Ok, so now you saying that you can distinguish between transformation that involves agency and one that doesn't?

How do you make these distinctions, what are the things you observe from an object that tells you it is designed through intent or not?

shadeyinka:
No, it has nothing to do with evolution but with classification!

In order words, you think humans were created from the scratch then?

LordReed:
From my first post


The materials used to make a phone under went a transformative process, without agency that would not have occurred.

Ok: I do not agree with you though.

E.g: Human body is primarily made of Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen. Do you think the obvious transformation observed in these materials to get the end product of human body proof of agency in creation of humans?

shadeyinka:
Humans are a subset of primates, who are subsets of mammals, who are subsets of vertibrates, who are subsets of living beings who live on the earth that is a subset of our solar system, which is a subset of the milky ways...

NOT in Isolation!

So, evolution to you is a tool of design then huh? Not like God literally designed man from the scratch?

LordReed:
Because the materials used to make it were transformed by agency which is the 2nd way we recognise design.

I don't understand, explain.

jesusjnr:
There can be no designer without a designed, and no designed without a material.

Therefore the material is very fundamental to recognizing a design, for a design can be recognized by comparing a designed material to an undesigned material.

For instance take clay, to be an undesigned material, and man, a designed material, and by comparing both the designed and undesigned material, the design can be recognized.

For one key factor that distinguishes between a designed material and an undesigned material is organization or arrangement.

Hence is the undesigned material of clay disorganized and disarranged, but the designed material of man very organized and well arranged.

It's similar to building and destroying, for while it takes a plan to build, to destroy doesn't require a plan, that's why it's easier to destroy than to build, because while building organizes, destroying disorganizes.

Moreover even among designed materials, there are more complex designs than others, and the more complex a design is, the more it makes a case that there must be a designer.

Hence the renowned scientist Isaac Newton opining that it was impossible for there not to be a designer, because of the extent of the organization and arrangement of the material he had seen, for it seemed a logical basis for him to opine so.

I mean even from practical perspective of our day to day lives, it's easy to tell a designed from an undesigned material, when we walk across the beach and we see sand disorganized and formless everywhere, we would not think it was designed because of how disorganized and formless the sand was.

But then we come across sand that has been formed in the image of man, with eyes, nose, ears, mouth, hands, legs etc., the extent of the organization of the material, compared to the disorganized form of the same material, would make it logical for us assume that it was actually designed and hence that there was a designer(man etc.) behind it.

So tell me, to what did you compare the universe to conclude thr universe is designed?

I.e: You think design can be inferred by comparing the design from the undesigned.

But for this comparison to happen, you must have already assumed one is designed and one isn't.

HappyPagan:
That's good news. I'm in PH. No plans this weekend.

I've been craving a meetup from this board, like not 1 on 1 but a sort of group like 4 or 5 at once (Christians, atheists etc). It would be interesting listening to many folks here argue their position without Google, don't you think?

LordReed:
I don't understand the point of what you wrote. Can you be clearer?

Summary of his question is; Based on your definition of design marked by previous experience, it would imply that the first of everything ever made by man isn't design since there wasn't any prior experience of it.

Do you agree with this?

Example, the first phone ever built, you wouldn't know it was designed since there isn't a previous experience of it?

ThothHermes:
Patterns in the manner of the Divine proportion?
Yes. I'm sure about it.

Work me through this golden ratio, elaborate more on it

shadeyinka:
Of course; humans are designed but not in isolation to every other thing.

I know you want to follow it up with your killer punch question: so, I'm waiting!

Hahaha killer punch.

I'd rather ask you explain yout first sentence "Humans are designed but not in isolation to every other thing"

Make me understand this better.

Emusan:
What other precursor do you think?

Presence of specific functions for specific parts is another precursor that increases the likelihood of design.

Goldilock zone only shows those planets are in habitable region if other factors that support life are met.

Well, this reply address your "Right orbit" point. Not other life supporting factors.

It will be disastrous

I said, what would be the right miles/per and what are the implications? Elaborate?

Whether it's alien or not, what we know is that today we have right quantity amount of oxygen and nitrogen in air mixture and any change from either of this can proof whether oxygen is truly alien to earth.

This point disputes your idea of oxygen being a design inherent to earth, it implies a default state of earth with the right amount of oxygen.

This refutation shows Oxygen quantity isn't default to earth hence is consonant to your idea.

It shows these elements are following a lay down rules that didn't change from beginning because had it been they were not designed to be so, the probability that these things will continue to repeat their operations for million years (as some scientists believe) is Capital ZERO!

Work me through this maths that led you to reach 0 as an answer

HappyPagan:
o boy where have you been? Ive been off Fb...

I've been around. Recently moved to Abuja. Possibly going to meet LordReed today or tomorrow

shadeyinka:
Characteristics of Design:
1. Functional Purpose not by accident!
A hoe, rake, tire, car etc all have functional purpose

A suitable branch could act as a rake but because a suitable branch was just found does not make it a design.
2. Systems Dependence:
Key and Padlock, Carburettor and Petrol Engine, Button and Button hole

Each part is useless without the other.
3. Organisation:
Organisation is determined when rules, formula or rules is used in placement of systems or part of a collection of objects.
4. Presence of Functions determined by Logics, Memory and Power consumption
Computer, Phone, Radio etc.

Of everyone who has answered here, i must say you are the only one who has made a good argument on what design really is.


Based on this definition, would you argue humans are designed?

HappyPagan:
It's the weekend.. section has been dull the past few months... just checking in on everyone.

Asin eeehn very dull

ThothHermes:
Presence of patterns. Eg The golden ratio
as someone has stated up there. Who thinks the Divine Proportion is chance

There can't be patterns without design? You are sure about this?

Emusan:
Something design means it follows orderliness.

For instance, a clock ticks every second and it must continue to tick always that's the designer's idea, if the action is repeated million times you'll be getting the same result.

Now if clock wasn't design, it means it can tick sometimes in second, or minute, even hour.

Let's compare this with earth that was designed to support life! "For the Lord is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the Lord,” he says, “and there is no other."

Ok, so order = design? I'm not exactly sure order is the only precursor to design.

1. Our earth is in its right orbit
2. Earth rotates at the right miles/per
3. Earth has right amount of oxygen & nitrogen in the air mixture.
4. Earth has right layers of atmosphere e.t.c

Lets vet these examples:

1. There are countless planets in the goldilock zone.
2. What woulf be the wrong miles/per
3. Uuuuhm, oxygen is actually alien to earth, it was a later addition by premodial life forms.
4. Ok

So, work me towards how they made you arrive at your conclusion?

OpenYourEyes1:
Look around you, do you see well formed shapes/structures and ordered systems with purpose?
Randomness does not create orders.
No matter how long the ocean is randomly mixed (trillions of years maybe?) it will never produce well formed shapes/structures and ordered systems with purpose.

I am not sure you are giving me precise variables to work with.

When you look at a house, what are the things you observe that makes you think it is more likely this was designed and not just random?

LordReed:
It is not saying much about them since everything they do not understand is attributed to gods. And the point is their inferences are skewed by a lack of experience.

, But the fundamental premise is that they recognized design

I said you have to show it.

Well fair enough by highlighting reasons to assume design

Without prior knowledge or similar experience? You would not. Eg a silicon based life form uses silicon to create all its technology such that everything comes out looking like a stone. If you found a such a stone how would you be able to distinguish it from a natural occurring stone?

Yes, prior knowledgr or similar experiences aren't basic pointers to design.

Pareidolia

So then you can intepret similarity as pareidolia?

MuttleyLaff:
The Golden Ratio
If you know, you know. Dem who no know, no go know

It's one thing to say the Golden ratio, it's another to elaborate others reading the thread who might take you up on it

LordReed:
If you've never had an experience with anything like it? Probably not. Have you heard of cargo cults? When people who had never seen goods produced by more advanced technology than they were used to, they began to ascribe their creation to gods. While this is not an absolute example, it shows that a lack of experience may render one unable to make accurate inferences.

But they still inferred design though the intricate quality of what they observed make them inferr a much higher form of designer. It is still an assumption of design on their part.

This demonstrates that there are things humans observe in an object that intuitively tell them this is likely designed.

Sure it doesn't but you still need to show intent.

Intent is inherent in the definition of design. So, the reasons to assume design are likewise for intent.

In summary, without the benefit of experience either of the raw materials or of similar objects it is hard to properly infer design. For example, if you landed on a truly alien planet, with no prior knowledge or experience of anything on that planet nor anything analogous to anything you know, would you be able to infer which things were designed or which were not? Most likely you won't because nothing there conforms to anything you've experienced in terms of design.

I can be able to infer things with the likelihood of being designed no matter how alien something is to me. Unfamiliarity doesn't erode our ability to recognize and infer something is designed.

For things you already have experience of, you'd compare what you are seeing with what you've already experienced.

What does the similarities between a dragonfly and helicopter say then?

OpenYourEyes1:
My simple definition of Design: [Well form shape/structure and ordered system with purpose

How do you recognize these?

If the universe was formed through explosion, by accident or randomly, you should expect lots of disorderliness, randomness, accidents, inconsistencies etc

Who said Universe formed through an explosion? To be sure?

LordReed:
This is the problem with the design argument, you need data points in other to infer design. As far we know sand is naturally occuring however if tomorroww we find out an alien species designed sand then we can know when we see another type of sand that it was probably designed as well. You cannot infer when you have nothing to go on.

So, when you see something like a phone you can't intuitively assume design right away?

With the way we use the word natural, yes it does. In other words if we call the things that are the result of the physical laws of the universe natural then no design is inferred.

nature to us simply describe physical cause and effects. I got to tell you though, cause and effect do not preclude conscious intent.

Familiarity either with the concept of a helicopter/flying machine or familiarity with raw materials that make up the helicopter.

Explain.

Not really the intricate quality itself but the process ie the involvement of a conscious agent. A bunch of twigs is different from a nest made from twigs because we recognise that a conscious agent, a bird has shaped the nest.

How do you look at things and conclude they is a conscious agent responsible? what are the things or qualities you observe that makes you assume the likelihood of a conscious agent.
You don't just recognize a conscious intent in something, there are pointers that influence this assumption.

What are those?

This is exactly what i am asking. When you look at a nest, or a phone, what do you see about this object that makes you think; there must be conscious intent behind this?

OpenYourEyes1:
Such crystals only take the form of their "microscopic skeletons". They are not randomly shaped by nature.

ok but not the point though

OpenYourEyes1:
Will respond to this tomorrow. Need some rest now.

Hope the thread is not littered with children by then

Look forward to your answer

LordReed:
I'd say we recognise design by 2 ways. First way we recognise design is by comparing it to something we already know is designed. Eg we know of no naturally occurring tables all tables we know are designed so when we see a table we have the experience of table to fall back on.

1. There are no specific features that tells you something is designed? E.g: E.G: You found some naturally occurring cubic crystals, but you don't know of any such thing occurring in nature, this is how you infer design?

2. Does natural mean absence of design?

3. What are the things you see in a helicopter that makes you think, this thing is probably designed?

The other way we recognize design is by acknowledging a significant difference between a source material and a resultant product. Eg there are beautiful looking stone formations but we recognize a significant difference between them and sculptures made from stone because we acknowledge the change from mere stone to sculpture.

So, increase in intricate quality suggests the likelihood of design?

The argument of design is one of the best arguments those who argue for the existence of God has in their arsenal, I myself consider the argument of design a very profound, logical and probable argument.

You see, but i have noticed one thing, those who usually use this argument seldom define for the merit of their argument how they recognize when something is designed? Or at least, things that makes it fair to assume that something is designed.

And on the other hand, those that argue against design, I'd say do not seem to also show that they understand what the fundamental premise that leads to the assumption of design.

This thread is to vet exactly what the proponents of the argument of design mean when they make such argument.

How do you recognize design?
What are the pointers that make you think it is logical to assume something was designed?

ElidaxZiel:
Pls can you tell me what science has done without using the pre existing material on earth

Science is so great but why are we still donating blood. Why can't science create blood.


SCIENCE IS NOTHING WITHOUT GOD

are we supposed to answer this?