What does un-designed look like?

Author: vagabond ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 32
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    Apparently the appearance of design proves the existence of a designer (god)
    Unfortunately the appearance of design must involve the appearance of non design as a counterpoint or it is meaningless.
    The claim of a designer of everything is a claim that nothing can appear designed.
    In that paradigm design can only mean exist and that makes the word design meaningless.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    No takers?
  • David
    David avatar
    Debates: 79
    Forum posts: 1,173
    4
    7
    10
    David avatar
    David
    St. Thomas Aquinas answers this nicely:

    We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

    This is evident in everything from the laws of physics to biology. Thus "un-designed" would look like bodies and natural entities that act with no end or no goal.

  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    --> @David
    We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end,
    Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end,

    Please explain.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    Still no takers?
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,801
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @vagabond
    Still no takers?

    Correct, still no takers. 
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    They claim to recognise design and yet cannot produce the counter point, non design, which would allow them to recognises design. They have absolutely no reference by which to recognise design. It's all just too frightening, isn't it.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,801
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    They claim to recognise , splutter , cough, cough, splutter blah blah cough.

    Oh shut up you boring vile little man. Who cares what you believe they claim. Who cares what you actually think or believe.

    And still no takers. People must know you very well on this forum, and good on them. Now go away and stop being the vile pest that you are.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    --> @Stephen
    Frightened little thing, words are scary for the likes of you. If you are incapable of understanding and participating in this discussion just leave, you won't be missed and it's obvious just how far above you this subject is. Bye for now. Do try to control your anger, it's very unbecoming.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,801
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @vagabond
    Still know takers.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    Cowards always go missing
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,801
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @vagabond
    No takers then.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    I wonder what non design looks like, perhaps one of the posters to this thread is claiming to be a demonstration?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 301
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    What does non-stinky stink of?
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    It's really hard for godists to answer this.
    Why is that?
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,801
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Still no takers.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    Come on you big brave IDers, you recognise design how? You must have something undesigned to which you can compare, otherwise you are merely referring to existing.
    You see something and exclaim oh look it exists, because you have no reference you can't exclaim oh look it's designed.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    --> @Stephen
    Don't you mean know?
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,801
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @vagabond
    still no takers
    No, still no takers.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    --> @Stephen
    What makes you so fearful of responding? Are you recompensed for your irritation?
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    The question unjustifiably assumes that the universe is not designed.
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    --> @Fallaneze
    How do you determine that it is designed, you actually mean it exists because you have absolutely nothing with which to compare it. Show me what isn't designed so that you can determine what design is. That watch is designed therefore that rock is also designed.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    Things that exist haven't been determined to be designed nor undesigned. You can't assume that things are non-designed merely if design can't be proven
  • vagabond
    vagabond avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 277
    0
    1
    2
    vagabond avatar
    vagabond
    --> @Fallaneze
    Ooh WOW.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,263
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    Everything we see and observe in creation meets the of definition of design in its end result. Likewise, nothing in creation contradicts that there is an apparent design for this existence to exist.
    Design-
    purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
    to devise for a specific function or end
    to conceive or execute a plan
    to create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect
    to have as a goal or purpose, intend
    the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details
    Un-design-
    no purpose, planning or intention that exists or thought to exist behind an action, fact or material object
    no devising for a specific function or end
    no conception or execution of a plan
    no creating or contriving for a particular purpose or effect
    to have no goal or purpose, intend
    no purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details

    One problem with un-design, everything under design is seen in creation and not in the other. 
    Hence, can you show any "undersigned" thing or object that has an apparent design (according to the definitions) that was not designed.....then, how can you show it to be so. If you cannot, there's no logical, intelligent reason to reject design in creation.