What does un-designed look like?

Author: vagabond

Posts

Total: 61
Topic's author
#1
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
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.
Topic's author
#2
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
No takers?
#3
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
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.

Topic's author
#4
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#5
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
Still no takers?
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@vagabond
Still no takers?

Correct, still no takers. 
Topic's author
#7
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
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.
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
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.
Topic's author
#9
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@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.
#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@vagabond
Still know takers.
Topic's author
#11
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
Cowards always go missing
#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@vagabond
No takers then.
Topic's author
#13
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
I wonder what non design looks like, perhaps one of the posters to this thread is claiming to be a demonstration?
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
What does non-stinky stink of?
Topic's author
#15
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
It's really hard for godists to answer this.
Why is that?
#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Still no takers.
Topic's author
#17
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
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.
Topic's author
#18
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Stephen
Don't you mean know?
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@vagabond
still no takers
No, still no takers.
Topic's author
#20
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Stephen
What makes you so fearful of responding? Are you recompensed for your irritation?
#21
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
The question unjustifiably assumes that the universe is not designed.
Topic's author
#22
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@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.
#23
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
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
Topic's author
#24
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Ooh WOW.
#25
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
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. 
Topic's author
#26
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
So you claim a rock is un-designed.
#27
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@vagabond
First stick to what I actually write, not that I expect a Bullproof to do such a thing. A rock is a crumble of material so no I'm not claiming a "rock" is designed. However, solid planet material exists for the purpose of building planets. So yes, rock MATERIAL is included in the design of planets but rocks themselves are just rocks, pieces of broken planet material.
ROCKS-
"Rocks come from magma, which is the molten material found within the earth. When magma cools, either above or below the earth's surface, it crystallizes and forms the igneous rocks that can later be changed into metamorphic or sedimentary rocks."

The question is not whether rocks were designed, the question is whether PLANETS were designed.

Having fun Bully? lol, how can you stand yourself?

#28
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@vagabond
There is no such thing as "undesigned". 
#29
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@vagabond
For fun, imagine there are three things on the ground - a stone, a watch and a snail - all about the same size.

No doubt the stone was not designed and the watch was designed, so what does that imply about the snail?

IMO, living things give every impression of being designed by a master craftsman. 

But they weren't designed by a master craftsman - they evolved.

I'm not even interested in debating the point  - there are 10 to the power 26 creation/evolution debates on the 'net already and lots of sites with better explanatory figures and graphics than I can put in post.
 
#30
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
"They evolved" IS the design, that's what the formula required. Why do people not get that, and deny the design in the process of it? makes no sense.