Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Gman wrote:How does this prove that there is no G-d or no designer? Also why are you using intellect to see patterns in nature? Who is this a pattern to?

It is a pattern of smooth hexagonal blocks all lined up. How does one determine if it was an old road designed by an intelligent agent? They certainly aren't crystals.

It doesn't matter what the pattern is.... How are you deciphering that there is a pattern?

I don't understand the question.

I know the definition of pattern and i see one; i know that this would make a nice road.

Here is a Roman road, made by intelligent agents:

Here is a pile of rocks, created by random chaotic natural forces:


Where does my original picture fit in?

sandy_mcd wrote:I don't understand the question.

I know the definition of pattern and i see one; i know that this would make a nice road.

So you are claiming to see a pattern? Is that true?

Gman wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:I don't understand the question.
I know the definition of pattern and i see one; i know that this would make a nice road.

So you are claiming to see a pattern? Is that true?

Yes, there is a pattern. It appears to be an old abandoned road. I am claiming to see a pattern. I am seeing a pattern. That is true.

sandy_mcd wrote:Yes, there is a pattern. It appears to be an old abandoned road. I am claiming to see a pattern. I am seeing a pattern. That is true.

Then you are claiming that "intellect" is required to "interpret" patterns in nature. The patterns themselves are meaningless in nature unless intellect has to be used to interpret how they "fit" a pattern.

KBCid wrote:4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

sandy_mcd wrote:A necessary but not sufficient condition.

KBCid wrote:For you maybe. For many others it is.

sandy_mcd wrote:Aye, and there's the rub.

Actually not. If it is "necessary" then it is logically part of the sufficiency that you deny it having.
The fact that oxygen is necessary but not sufficient to form water does not negate the fact that oxygen is part of the sufficiency used to make water.

sandy_mcd wrote:Consider an examination of some object for design. Obviously(?) it is necessary that the object show some property which we know come from intelligence.

Yup precisely

sandy_mcd wrote:A pile of sand could be designed but there is usually no way of telling.

Yup it could be designed and of course there is "no way of telling" because It also isn't showing a "property which we know "(ONLY)" come from intelligence." It shows nothing but properties that can be readily understood as arising from natural causes which are sufficient to explain its arrangement. Thus we apply Ockham's razor. You know how the razor is applied right?

It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

I am also quite fond of Newton;
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

sandy_mcd wrote:However, I believe it is also required that this property be only possible through design; KBCid disagrees.

Talking to me in the third person? and attributing me with an assertion I never said. Hmmmm this does not bode well.
ID is asserting that a certain property is a type of "information produced when intelligent agents act.". I am quite positive that they and I are also certain that such a property has not been observed to be caused by anything other than intelligence. In my empirical mind if I can find a natural cause for an effect then there is no logic to assume any other causes. I am reminded of a joke that seems to apply here.

Why is a lost item always found in the last place you look......

Obviously one does not keep looking when it is found. Tell me in your experience what have you seen that can create a mechanical motor out of complexly arranged matter that has many levels of complex interactions? What is sufficient to explain such a formation?.

sandy_mcd wrote: I really don't see how it is sufficient to say that it could have been designed because it looks like some things that are designed.

Of course you don't see how. Most people don't understand how the big thing under the hood funtions and they use them every day like its some simple little thing made of plasm... It requires an understanding of mechanics and why things made of matter must be arranged in certain ways to gain a function before understanding can play a part in deduction.
The other thing you don't see nor understand is what the definition of ID is saying to you.

"4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act."

Making something look naturally made is only one type of information that can be produced by ID. This is not its only type. Notice the five letter word "types". It's a neat little english word that implies multiplicity.

"Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence."

Now when a real smart scientist type person begin to look for other things in the environment he is looking for something that exhibits "those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence". You see that neat little word is used again "types" and they even make sure you understand that the properties they base their inferences on are the ones "which we commonly know come from intelligence". Of note here is the implication that it would also be commonly known not to come from any other known cause.

Gman wrote:Then you are claiming that "intellect" is required to "interpret" patterns in nature. The patterns themselves are meaningless in nature unless intellect has to be used to interpret how they "fit" a pattern.

Gman the reference provided by Sandy was intended to sidetrack the real discussion. The entirety of her arguement sidetrack is to infer that if you can't tell when a natural item is designed then you also can't tell when a designed item is designed. The proper way to have replied to her sidetrack is to ask what part of the information provided in the picture could only be attributed to intelligent agency. Patterns in general are not owned by intelligence. Patterns of many kinds happen by natural causes all the time. All the ID people I know don't rest their science on that which can be readily explainable by any natural mechanism.
Making the opposition appear dumb is a debate tactic used to imply here that the opposition is incapable of making a logical and rationale scientific deduction.

Gman wrote:Then you are claiming that "intellect" is required to "interpret" patterns in nature. The patterns themselves are meaningless in nature unless intellect has to be used to interpret how they "fit" a pattern.

I'm lost. What does this have to do with the topic?

KBCid wrote:if you can't tell when a natural item is designed then you also can't tell when a designed item is designed. The proper way to have replied to her sidetrack is to ask what part of the information provided in the picture could only be attributed to intelligent agency. Patterns in general are not owned by intelligence. Patterns of many kinds happen by natural causes all the time. All the ID people I know don't rest their science on that which can be readily explainable by any natural mechanism.

Here KBCid finally may get the point. " ONLY be attributed to intelligent agency." The "only" is the key point. So how does the "only" get demonstrated?

KBCid wrote:Making the opposition appear dumb is a debate tactic used to imply here that the opposition is incapable of making a logical and rationale scientific deduction.

I'm not making anyone look dumb.

KBCid wrote:The fact that oxygen is necessary but not sufficient to form water does not negate the fact that oxygen is part of the sufficiency used to make water.

And it does not mean that water can be made from oxygen alone. Having "oxygen" or "traits which designers can make" is not a sufficiency for "making water" or "for proving design". So how do we know these traits can't occur naturally?

KBCid wrote:It also isn't showing a "property which we know "(ONLY)" come from intelligence."

The"only" is key and was absent from earlier posts.

KBCid wrote:Talking to me in the third person? and attributing me with an assertion I never said.

I talk to people in email. This is a public post. Actually I am hoping someone else can explain what KBCid is trying to say. The "only" is missing from earlier comments.

KBCid wrote:I am quite positive that they and I are also certain that such a property has not been observed to be caused by anything other than intelligence.

But there has been no human observer for most of the earth's existence. So how do these ID scientists conclude that something can not be caused by something other than intelligence?

No one has observed a non-volcanic mountain appear; must they be designed?

KBCid wrote: The entirety of her arguement sidetrack is to infer that if you can't tell when a natural item is designed then you also can't tell when a designed item is designed.

The entirety of the argument is to show that just because something has not been observed to occur naturally does not mean that it can not occur naturally. And apparently that is the assumption used in ID.

A has not been observed to occur naturally.
A can be made by humans.
Therefore A must be designed.

And I think a stronger first step is necessary.

sandy_mcd wrote:

KBCid wrote: The entirety of her arguement sidetrack is to infer that if you can't tell when a natural item is designed then you also can't tell when a designed item is designed.

The entirety of the argument is to show that just because something has not been observed to occur naturally does not mean that it can not occur naturally. And apparently that is the assumption used in ID.

A has not been observed to occur naturally.
A can be made by humans.
Therefore A must be designed.

And I think a stronger first step is necessary.

here then are the first,second and final steps viz Thinker/Designer/Knower - twinc

sandy_mcd wrote:Here KBCid finally may get the point. " ONLY be attributed to intelligent agency." The "only" is the key point. So how does the "only" get demonstrated?

KBCid had the point long before you tried to make it. KBCid is a logical and rational mechanical engineer nearing 30 yrs.

I have no inclination to attempt to posit an attribute that intelligence can cause and natural cause has been proven to cause. This would be a complete waste of time and intellect. ID proponents and myself have noted a variety of attributable effects that are "ONLY" observationaly attributable to ID.
Making an assumption of an irrational use of logic without asking how one arrived at it is a bad form of debate.

The only you speak of, can and is demonstrated every day by a plethora of intelligent designers in a wide array of fields. You could be one of those same designers who leaves behind such attributes as I am reffering to. I could name a number of observable effects that only ID leaves behind but, some of the important things in life are learned by study. Try and study in a scientific manner what a designed form of matter provides as a basis for your knowing it was designed. Don't be stuck at the starting line and simply assert that it is designed because you have seen so many designed things that it is common.

KBCid wrote:The fact that oxygen is necessary but not sufficient to form water does not negate the fact that oxygen is part of the sufficiency used to make water.

sandy_mcd wrote:And it does not mean that water can be made from oxygen alone. Having "oxygen" or "traits which designers can make" is not a sufficiency for "making water" or "for proving design". So how do we know these traits can't occur naturally?

If intelligence is any part of the sufficiency for an effect then it proves the necessity for its inclusion in anything that exhibits the effect. How many other things may be involved in the final form are only mildly considered once the point is past where ID is determined to have any part in an effect. An example is Mount Rushmore. This final form we observe is a composite of natural causes and intelligent design. We all know that the carved part was an intelligent creation of form and we all know that the mountain is explainable by natural cause. So, the fact that this formation of matter exhibits attributes of a natural formation does not allow one to overlook the clear attributes of design that cannot be attributed to anything else.

KBCid wrote:It also isn't showing a "property which we know "(ONLY)" come from intelligence."

sandy_mcd wrote:The"only" is key and was absent from earlier posts.

Note that only is shown as an inserted word clearly meant to show its insertion. there is no need to highlight this observable intelligent action when the intellect that did it made sure it was noticed. For some reason you think only was intentionally left out when I and other ID proponents talk about ID attributes and I want to make sure you see that I have no problem inserting it in at any time. My evidences are not cloudy ideas from an imagined cause. I live in an empirical world. The simplest way to debate in this case would have been to simply ask "are you inferring "only" in reference to the defining of how ID attributes are used. Simple... to the point... no assumptions made... and no false assertions tendered. A simple question to make a determination and then move forward.

KBCid wrote:Talking to me in the third person? and attributing me with an assertion I never said.

sandy_mcd wrote:I talk to people in email. This is a public post. Actually I am hoping someone else can explain what KBCid is trying to say. The "only" is missing from earlier comments.

I am talking to you in this email / web forum. I have no problem understanding that when I quote you and give a reply that I am directing my reply to you. I don't make a reply just to make a public outburst for the benefit of other readers.
By the way sandy did you notice that the word "(ONLY)" was never in earlier comments?. That must mean something very important right?. Or maybe it is missing because logic and reason is presumed sufficient for that understanding to be implied.

KBCid wrote:I am quite positive that they and I are also certain that such a property has not been observed to be caused by anything other than intelligence.

sandy_mcd wrote:But there has been no human observer for most of the earth's existence. So how do these ID scientists conclude that something can not be caused by something other than intelligence?

No one is positing anywhere at any time that anything cannot be caused "by something other than intelligence". Science doesn't work by way of proving what cannot cause something. Scientists devise empirical testing to prove what they rationalise is able to cause an effect;

Overview of the Scientific Method
The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. In other words, they design an experiment so that changes to one item cause something else to vary in a predictable way. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f ... thod.shtml

ID and myself posit that there are specific effects observable in living forms of matter that exhibit the same effects that "(ONLY)" intelligent design has been observed to cause. Do you get that yet sandy? We have made an observation and assert that intelligence is a capable and "(ONLY)" cause "(SO FAR)" for making the evidence we observe. No one is saying that we are empirically asserting that everything else is ruled out by this observation. You are the only one trying to set this strawman arguement up.
The fact is that at any point in time you can go right out there and prove by repeatable empirical scientific method that something / anything else can also cause the same effect. Do you understand this? If you want to prove your hypothesis that only natural forces are necessary to cause the effects we observe being exhibited by living forms you are free to bring forward any repeatable evidence you want and it will be accepted because it will be repeatable aka the scientific method.
But, on the other hand if you don't have repeatable evidence for what you "(THINK)" is capable of causing an effect then I have every right to call you on it and deny your imagination holds any truth. This is why I am free to say "prove that natural causes can produce the effects exhibited by life".

sandy_mcd wrote:No one has observed a non-volcanic mountain appear; must they be designed?

And no one is asserting that intelligent design did it either. This is essentially because a non-volcanic mountain does not display any of the definable attributes that "(ONLY)" ID has been observed to leave behind. I defy you to point out an attribute of a non-volcanic mountain you have only observed intelligence to be a cause for. Otherwise your assertion is another strawman arguement.

{quotes rearranged a little in order}

sandy_mcd wrote:No one has observed a non-volcanic mountain appear; must they be designed?

KBCid wrote:And no one is asserting that intelligent design did it either.

So it is accepted that some things (at least could have) occurred naturally and no one observed that happening since the time scale is too long for human observation.

KBCid wrote:No one is saying that we are empirically asserting that everything else is ruled out by this observation.
No one is positing anywhere at any time that anything cannot be caused "by something other than intelligence".

ID and myself posit that there are specific effects observable in living forms of matter that exhibit the same effects that "(ONLY)" intelligent design has been observed to cause.
We have made an observation and assert that intelligence is a capable and "(ONLY)" cause "(SO FAR)" for making the evidence we observe.

So you are saying in the first two sentences that natural causes cannot be ruled out.
But since there is no observation of natural causes, we can rule out natural causes acting swiftly but not over long periods of time. Is that all correct?

I'm sorry, but I don't consider that a very strong scientific argument. [Remember Ockham's Razor?]

KBCid wrote:This is why I am free to say "prove that natural causes can produce the effects exhibited by life".

You are perfectly free to say that. But as you no doubt know, nature does lots of far simpler things which scientists have spent millions of dollars on and still not figured out (e.g. nitrogen fixation). So the fact that there is currently no experiments demonstrating natural causes means essentially nothing.

If a logical and reasonable person decided to take a stroll on the beach and saw a message carved into the sand saying "Steve loves Sandy" with a big heart and cupids arrow right through the heart, the reasonable and logical person would conclude that this was the work of an intelligent mind. If some told me that this message was created naturally by the ocean waves I would have to conclude that this person would need a straight jacket ASAP.