[
Replying to post 61 by DrNoGods]
What evidence would you expect should exist which would signify there is a designer involved with existence?
If I lived 2000 years ago I would probably happily believe that there was a designer because humans of the time had such a rudimentary knowledge of science that it made sense to assign deities to nearly everything. There were simply no other explanations, but still some people wondered and didn't just leave it at that. Eventually, explanations that didn't involve deities came along to explain the motions of the planets, microorganisms as a source for disease, cell structure/function, weather events, volcanic eruptions, the structure of matter and chemical reactions, and all of the many other things that science has provided answers for.
Your answer assumes that somehow belief in a creative designer is anti science, when science is the proces of examining the design and learning to understand it. Science is not about making claims there is or isn't a designer. That job is largely left up to the theists and atheists.
Certainly some types of theism have actively resisted scientific theory - but I suspect overall this is a reaction to atheists interpreting what science revels as somehow evidence that an intelligent designer (GOD) does not exist.
It has to be acknowledged that the resistance by and large is due to that, as well as due to more political undercurrents which also see science as a possible threat to power.
All in all though, if we observe the effect of Christianity historically, while there is no doubt political resistance was involved, we would not be at the place we currently are in relation to scientific discovery, had Christianity (and indeed ALL of the Abrahamic religions) did not occur.
I am not saying this was a good or bad thing. I am saying we would have been beating drums and dancing and chanting and likely living more harmoniously with the Earth...but also stuck in a place where scientific development could not have progressed as it has done and where superstition prevailed.
If we are to sing the praises of science, we should acknowledge the history which got us here.
These explanations have eliminated nearly all of the reasons to believe that deities exist, and the gaps that do remain in our knowledge do not automatically imply a designer. We can very well explain nature at the level of atoms and larger, including the evolution of things as complex as eyes and human brains, where consciousness comes from (normal brain activity), and the Standard Model of physics does a good job of explaining things at subatomic scales where quantum effects dominate (although it has deficiencies that science continues to work on).
None of which actually show a designer is not behind it all. Science cannot be the device useful to determine such a thing.
Simply put, while the notion may be a popular one among the scientific communities, it is not here nor there as to how popular a notion becomes. We honestly don;t know, but I honestly can say - due to my own subjective experience in an objective situation, there is far more than meets the eye or can be absolutely verified by scientific method.
Even the belief that the brain creates consciousness, is a theory. The observations do not show conclusively that this is the case, and the data can be interpreted that consciousness uses the brain/body and without it, the body is as useful as a car without a driver. Good for Google (but still designed by intelligence) but automated and programmed not to think out of the box as an autonomous consciousness.
Incredible variations require conscious, intelligent design. Incredible variations are evident in biological evolution processes.
As for evidence that there is a designer involved,and what would constitute that,
I was wondering if you would get to answering my question ...
I'd have to say some actual, empirical evidence that such an entity exists, and so far that has never been produced by anyone.
Too vague. Try again. This was the question:
What evidence would you expect should exist which would signify there is a designer involved with existence?
To be fair, I don't expect anyone can answer the question. It has been an ongoing question in this forum for a few weeks now - and no answer has been forth-coming. The question is fast becoming rhetorical.
There is no reasonable answer so the demand for 'evidence' is unreasonable when those demanding such cannot even say what would constitute such evidence.
Perhaps it is time to come up with a name for this fallacy?
If belief in a designer is purely the result of philosophical and spiritual pondering, then physical evidence has no relevance and it becomes only a matter of faith.
Not according to Panentheisim. Philosophical and spiritual pondering, introspection subjective evidence, are part of the recipe. Physical evidence is as important to that recipe, and that is a matter of interpretation. I see intelligence involved. I connect with the intelligence involved. It works for me on a subjective level, and I am fine with that. Science of itself (as a process) does not conflict with my subjective experience in examining objective reality. Science of itself is not in any way taking umbrage with my personal interpretation.
But since there is no need to invoke a designer to explain nature, why believe that such an entity exists?
Because my subjective experience in relation to the objective world shows me that this is the case.
And in that, there is no 'invoking' any more than you need to 'invoke' me into your experience. I am real. So too is the designer.
'Inviting' would be the more appropriate word, at least in relation to my own experience.
But that is entirely up to the individual.
What about a much simpler explanation that humans, just like every other living thing on this planet, die after some period of time and that is the end of it? No afterlives or continued existence of a soul, etc. This seems much more likely to be the true situation given that we've never encountered a dead person reappearing as a live one, seen evidence of reincarnation, had communication with dead person via any means, etc. Afterlives are pure conjecture.
No more pure conjecture than believing there is to be nothing else to your existence once your body dies.
My thoughts on death.
It is not somewhere science is able to presently go. It does not matter. My point remains. Death is presently a certain thing each of us will be experiencing . I have good reasons for thinking there is more to life than death. Subjective experience, so nothing to do with the process of science.
Historically, cultures separated from each other do have similar - very similar- stories to tell, all coming from individual subjective experiences.
There are even atheists who believe in afterlife. They experience Astral Projection regularly, and while they do not outright reject the notion that death of the body might mean death of the personality/consciousness, they tend to see that as a very slim possibility, largely due to the nature of their subjective experiences. It is one thing to believe that the brain somehow conjured up consciousness, but another thing entirely to believe that the brain can conjure up the landscapes/universes experienced which are often beyond the ability of human language to describe adequately, but are consciously experienced.
It is more plausible to think that such experiences are not sourced within the individual human brain, but more likely are sourced in the mind of a GOD.
All in all, a deeply penetrating subject in and of itself where the process of science is presently unable to delve into due to the box it is in in relation to being the tool in which to examine physical evidence. The physical evidence may indeed by sourced in the mind of a GOD anyway. I think it is the case. You think it isn't. What I think and what you think are not so diametrically opposed as to cause any legitimate conflict, as far as I can ascertain.
But it isn't! That is the point. Evolution is not happening intelligently or with any purpose, by definition.
The definition comes through the interpretation. Even if the definition is popular, this in itself does not show it is correct.
Evolution is happening intelligently and with purpose. It is also able to learn...
...that is what adaptation is about.
It is natural selection that may give the appearance of intelligence because it influences which mutations remain in the population and correspondingly the results these mutations produce such as beneficial longer beaks, or better eyes, or some other feature.
Exactly!
But there is no intelligence involved in the process.
but you just explained the intelligence involved in the process.
To say that 'there is an appearance' and then claim 'it is not as it appears' is conjecture which is forced into the process through denying what is pertinently obvious.
It is far better to speak truthfully. What appears to be the case, IS in fact, the case.
Far better than going oxymoron.
Nope ... you are confusing natural selection with "intelligence."
Nope. I am acknowledging intelligence within the process. That is not and never can be truthfully attributed to 'confusion'.
