What is atheism's falsifiability?
Offline As I hope we can all agree, it is meaningless to hold something true if the belief is unfalsifiable. Certainly we have all heard of the following example: "I believe that the inside of a watermelon is blue, until it is cut into, at which time it appears red, as a watermelon ought to." This belief is not falsifiable because it isn't necessarily true, but it can never be proven false. As soon as the observer opens up the fuit to observe its color, it is too late and is no longer blue.
Identically, belief in an absolute negative is not falsifiable. Meaning, I cannot soundly believe it to be true with any degree of credibility that something absolutely not exist, unless I can observe the enitirity of the space in question simultaneously. If I can observe the space's entirity, but not simultaneously, then the assurance becomes a question of probability, and hence cannot be true absolutely.
Example: I can believe and determine it true that no white apple with purple polka dots exists in my luch pail because I can observe the inside's entirity simultaneously to determine it so. But I cannot determine it true that no white apple with purple polka dots exists in the universe, simply because I cannot observe the entire universe simultaneously. If one were able to do so, then he would be omniscient. Only a diluted person would propose that he be omniscient, agreed? If indeed he were, then the quest for God will have been concluded. So then to take it a step further, back up, and insert the word "God" for "white apple with purple polka dots".
This brings me to my point. Except that a man be omniscient, can he rationally believe it true that God somewhere within the universe, or without, not exist? This, however, is a belief in an absolute negative. If you as a rational thinker understand and accept this, then the philosophy of atheism crumbles to agnosticism, and soft agnosticism at that (id est that one can be unsure of the existence of God, but he cannot be certain that nothing can be known of Him). For to believe that nothing can be known of God is indeed in itself something that is claimed to be known, and so the belief collapses under its own assertion.
So to the person, whom atheism still claims in spite of the previous paragraph, I ask what is the falsifiability of atheism? What possibility of evidence could demonstrate atheism false, without which the belief in atheism is a mere belief in an absolute negative, and therefore has no bearing? Except for omniscience that is...
- Login to post comments
Well, first would be a coherent definition of what is meant by "god." Second would be some evidence.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Holy Spirit-
You are using philosophy, but science, which we have on our side, came from philosophy. There's no going back. The progress of science now drives the evolution of our philosophies. Face it: you live in a scientific era in which all the evidence supports our position.
Your conclusion that the opposite of chaos must be design is faulty. The opposite of chaos is order. Design is far too specific. As science has shown, order not only results from design but from evolution as well.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
I think your analogy falls apart here. I can visit Ford Motor Company, complain to a corporate executive, or threaten a lawsuit against Ford if the Ford Ranger's design flaw causes me to get in an accident. This idea of God is not the same as the Ford Motor Company. God doesn't provide receipts and documentation. You can't subpoena God in court. Similarly, Ford Motors' products don't have free will. They just have design flaws, sometimes. About the only similarity I can see is that I neither worry about the Ford Motor nor God forgiving me for my sins or threatening me with eternal hellfire.
What three tests? And how can eyes refuse to see or ears refuse to hear? These are involuntary functions. What's voluntary is the ability to listen. Especially to reason.
It's easy to interpret "prophecy" retroactively. How about using the Bible to actually PREDICT the future instead of INTERPRETING THE PAST? If the "end" is supposed to come once everyone on Earth accepts Jesus Christ as their savior, than I intend to do everything possible to stop the spread of Christianity, so that this belief in the "End Times" does not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What happens, hypothetically, Jared, if 99.9% of Earth turns to Christian and nothing happens? What about the .1% who just don't buy it? Will the Christians then attempt to bring about the end times, believing they are being directed by God? This is a truly scary thought.
Most of us have read the entirety of the Bible. I assistant teach in the Intellectual Heritage Curriculum at Temple University, where the Bible is studied along with the Qu'ran, the Enuma Elish, and the Upanishads, as well as John Locke and Plato and Aristotle and the writings of Saint Augustine and Charles Darwin. It seems that studying the Bible in the context of the entirety of western civilization, its history, and its intellectual traditions isn't enough for you, and that the only way you think we can truly appreciate the Bible is by having faith that it is the word of God. I've heard this from Christians before who've tried to convert me, and failed. I will say multiple times, during the conversation, that I have in fact read the Bible, only to hear them say to me, "If only you'd read the Bible..." So apparently, I have to agree with you first before I open the book in order to appreciate it. I'll stick to secular academia, thank you very much. The Bible is a far more interesting book when you're allowed come to your own conclusions about it.
This is EXACTLY what we do, and it's the reason we're here.
If the answers are in the Bible and not in its followers, why try to convert people? Why then isn't an academic appreciation of the Bible enough? And what do you mean by "evidence for/against" Christianity? I don't follow. Christianity exists. It's the existence of god we doubt.
Hoping that one day we'll be more like you is not love, no matter how many times you call it that. Love does not include the implied threat of God's wrath, hellfire and eternal torment.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
So, let's see. Here's the logic for being an atheist:
1. There is no evidence for God.
1.1 The complexity of the universe can be described with simple, understandable concepts and rules
1.2 So far, there is no evidence those rules have ever been violated, altered, or otherwise manipulated
2. The addition of God into reality presupposes another "supernatural" realm
2.1 Occam's razor tends to slice this right off at the nub
2.2 There is no evidence for another realm outside of or superposed to observable, natural reality
Here's how to falsify atheism:
1. Find God.
2. Find evidence of a supernatural realm with a supernatural being
3. Find God's signature on His work
3.1 I mean, a *real* signature. Like a bunch of stars that line up to say, "Love ya, Baby, no shit. -- God. PS: Hope you like your apocalypse. I bought it special."
3.1.1 Probably not enough to convince all atheists. I just thought it was funny.
Now, the logic for being a theist (specifically, a Christian):
1. The Bible says God is real
2. God wrote the Bible
3. God is omniscient, so he'd know he's real, wouldn't he?
Here's how to falsify theism:
1. You can't.
1.1 That makes it better than atheism
1.2 Take that, filthy heathen pig-dog atheist!
Did I get anything wrong? Did I miss something?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Aside from the fact that you can falsify it through logic?
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Holy_Spirit, are you going to answer my questions? If the Bible is God's word, why do I have to have faith in Jesus before I open it to appreciate it. Hypothetically, wouldn't an academic reading of the Bible be enough, if its "truth" is so powerful?
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
There's no way to falsify it through logic. Belief in God is not based on logic, so how can you falsify it using logic?
That's one of the reasons you'll never convince most beleivers God doesn't exist. They presuppose the existence of God, which is of itself unreasonable. Ergo, their view is that it's impossible to logically falsify God's existence.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I would agree that belief in gods is not based on logic, but that has nothing to do with it's falsifiability. It is falsifiable, whether a believer will accept it or not. One of the best things about logic is that it doesn't require belief, and it's logical anyway.
A theist may argue that it's impossible to prove it wrong, but that doesn't make it so. It's not impossible. Many people have changed their position through reasoned argument. Some people will be stubborn about it, but in that case I'd suggest you try to address any reasons they feel they need to believe first.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Sorry. I was stubbornly sticking with the typical theist defence, rather than admitting that you are, of course, right. The existence of God is falsifiable, has been falsified.
I was being irrational for the sake of being irrational. Just 'cause I could.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I kind of figured that, but you never know on the internet.
When you see the same things over and over, it can bring about such reactions. At least you can admit when you're wrong.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
You let God off the hook for so much. Why?
God gave man free will yet he made sure everything that happened in the Garden went by his pre-made plan.
Man ushered sin into the world, but he couldn't have done it without God's help.
God will destroy the world to remove the cancer of sin that it wouldn't have had if he had not infected the world in the first place.
I'm not going to get into the textual criticism paragraph as I know very little about the subject and, it seems, you know less. If you had, you wouldn't have the gall to claim the Bible passed with "flying colors".
If wars and rumors of wars fulfilled prophecy, then those "prophecies" were fulfilled before they were even written. Humans are warlike bastards after all. Israel (as a political entity) has also been established and re-established several times. You just choose to put your prophetic goalposts at 1948.
For your edification, most of us have done our research. As Asimov said, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.". If you've studied it, you'd be able to relate your information in a form students would understand. As you resorted to preaching from the beginning and continued despite being answered, I question that your study was any more than finding things that agreed with your initial conclusions.
I'm sure you have reasons and conclusions for your belief that are valid for you. That doesn't make them valid for everyone. It also doesn't give them any evidentiary value.
I do so love it when one who has presupposed God is the correct option accuses other of presuppositions. It makes my ironic heart go pitter-pat.
As for the shock of failed expectations of the afterlife, the same goes for you when you expect to be walking through gates of pearl on streets of gold hand in hand with Jesus and get only the long dirt nap
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Holy Spirit, you actually raise a good question, and I have not read this whole thread, so I don't know if it has been answered, so I will attempt to do so.
You are correct in saying that if I were to say, "God does not exist" this would be a unfalsifiable faith-based statement.
This is true because stating that "God does not exist" is a positive statement about how the universe is, and since one cannot prove that anything doesn't exist it requires a leap of faith to make this statement.
This is what is considered to be "hard atheism." I believe it is an incorrect philosophical position, precisely because it is a faith statement.
So what's the alternative?
Well, given that you cannot prove that anything DOESN'T exist, we choose instead to operate on the principal that one must decide what is true on the basis of what DOES exist. What does exist is evidence. As a rule, we know that something exists because it is observable or it has an observable effect on the universe.
So here is the basic approach to knowledge that we atheists operate on: If you have no evidence, the DEFAULT assumption is that it doesn't exist.
Then we practice the discipline of uncertainty. This means that we hold in our minds the assumption that everything we know may be wrong! Paradoxically, this uncertainty is the foundation of our knowledge, because it is uncertainty that allows us to accept the fact that our conclusions are mistaken and to adjust our view of the world when new evidence arises.
Because we are using this approach, what we are doing is we are operating on a different principal than you are. We are operating on the principal that since there is no evidence of God, there is no reason to believe that he exists.
It is not that we believe that god does not exist. It is that we do not believe that he does exist.
Notice the difference:
"I believe god does not exist"
Vs.
"I have no reason to believe that he does exist, therefore I must assume that he does not"
This is a subtle but important semantic difference! I hold that since there is no evidence to support the idea that god exists, I must assume that he does not, until evidence to the contrary comes along. I may be wrong, but this is fine by me. Being wrong is part of learning.
This approach to the question of God's existence is called "Soft Atheism" and it pit's god into the same logical category as unicorns, the Easter bunny, and Bigfoot (which is where he belongs until evidence of god's existence is found).
Does this make sense? Is it clearer now? What you are doing is attacking the hard atheist position by using the same logic that a soft atheist uses to attack your position that god exists. This is fine, and it is correct, but most of us here are not hard atheists, we are soft atheists, which means that we simply accept that since there is no evidence that god exists, we must assume that he does not.
As a theists, you are making the same mistake that hard atheists are making: You are assuming that what you want to be true is true, simply because there is no evidence that it is not true. This is like saying that Bigfoot must exist, since there is no proof that he doesn't exist. Sorry, It doesn't work that way.
The real difference in our positions is our relationship to uncertainty. A theist says "I don't like being uncertain, so I'm going to make up a story to cover up my uncertainty." A good example of this phenomena is the idea that god created the universe. NO ONE KNOWS how the universe got here. Instead of sucking it up and living with this uncertainty, many theists say "god made the universe" This is a story used by them to avoid the unpleasant feeling that uncertainty gives them. We soft atheists accept that there are limits to our knowledge and when we reach those limits we say "I don't know" we don't make up happy stories to help us get by.
Remember how when you were in school, and you told your teacher that you didn't know the answer, this meant that you didn't do your homework and it made you feel stupid? Back in school, "I don't know" was the wrong answer! Fortunately, out here in the real world, "I don't know" is often the BEST answer you can possibly give! "I don't know" means that you are open to learning the truth, whatever it may be. This is why they call being out of school the "real world," because as a grown up, "I don't know" is the answer that starts your quest for knowledge, and it is your responsibility to come up with an answer, because no one is going to decide what's true for you.
I encourage you to ask your self one simple question. How do you decide what's true? If you decide what's true based on what other people tell you (or what the bible tells you - it was written by bronze-aged priests after all) without demanding evidence to support it, then you are being gullible. As children this is how we learn - by believing our parents. As we grow up, and take on the responsibility of adulthood, we can no longer cling to "this is true because my parents told me it is" We recognize that sometimes our parents are wrong. Theists don't want to apply this discipline to their beliefs in the supernatural. This is what makes them theists.
This is why Albert Einstein described theists as "childish:" The decision to hold onto your story, in the absence of evidence is like a child clinging to the idea that his parents are always right. A grown up knows that he doesn't know, and he sucks it up and lives with it.
Hope this was helpful.
TLDR
In any case, atheism does not need to be falsified any more than religion does. Atheism is not one thing, any more than religion is. We all come to atheism on our own terms and those terms vary with the individual.
One can call Buddhism/Christianity/Islam one thing. That thing would be religion and would be valid within one sphere of inquiry. The problem here would be to insist that each one be falsifiable on a single common ground.
Asking how one can prove atheism falsifiable is really not that different from asking how one can prove which religion is correct. First, you have to have a good idea of what you are trying to prove to be either right or wrong.
=
Atheism is clearly falsifiable - just requires clear demonstration of the existence of God.
Its Theism that is not falsifiable, because they can always argue that God is beyond science, or refuses to let his existence be tested, or whatever, every time we point to anything that seems to point to a naturalistic explanation rather than God, or fails to show evidence of God where we might expect it to show, like all the failed or negative prayer studies.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So this whole thread exists because god-believers can't/won't accept the burden of proof that is theirs?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Pretty much.
Plus it also is based on the fallacy that we need to 100% prove that something does or does not exist to be able to claim useful knowledge about it.
Any system of analysing and understanding reality which cannot rigorously manage uncertain data, randomness, chance, imperfect knowledge, is all but useless, since our 'knowledge' of the existence or non-existence of entities and processes in the real world is inevitably tinged with a degree of uncertainty. That is the strength of Science, where all 'knowledge', in the form of theories, is to some degree tentative, with an associated level of confidence, depending on the assessment of the quality of the evidence and the accuracy with which the theory seems to model the aspect of reality it attempts to address. All of this has an element of the subjective in assessing the confidence we can have in any current theory, but this too is managed, especially with Bayesian analysis.
It is only in last couple of centuries that the conceptual and mathematical tools for assessing and analysing uncertainty and randomness have matured. They are mostly encompassed by Probability Theory, and related disciplines like Bayesian Analysis.
These ideas seem to have begun to be examined back in the 17th century, with people like Pascal and Fermat.
According to Keith Devlin, a Consulting Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Stanford, author of "The Unfinished Game", Pascal, and thinkers before him, "scholars and even leading mathematicians believed that any attempt to predict the likelihood of future events was futile; the future was known by God alone". So it is ironic, that Pascal, originator of the infamous 'wager', really coouldn't quite get his head around how to assess the odds in gambling, and other processes whose outcome was subject to uncertainty and/or true randomness. He was very clever, but his religious beliefs got in the way. Familiar story?
Whereas Fermat apparently had no such problems.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I know this point was made in many ways in the earlier part of the thread, but the only sense in which atheism is not falsifiable, is if God is something which not actually be shown to exist, by its 'nature'.
But that really just means that Atheism is not falsifiable because belief in God is not a defendable, logical, coherent position.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
OK, I understand what you are saying Bob. However, my point is that falsifiability is not really at issue for holy-spirit-is-welcome. Therefore, it is not even needed here.
First off, he conflated not believing in god with believing in the non-existence of god. That sounds like a red herring to me.
Well, I also do not believe in the evil galactic overlord Xenu either. This is not the same thing as believing in the non-existence of Xenu. What is operative here is that I simply do not accept L. Ron Hubbard as an authority and no other exists on the matter. So far as I can tell, the whole Xenu thing probably stems from Hubbard making a bet with someone in the middle of the last century that he could get people to believe in something that is patently absurd.
In a similar vein, I would not accept the bible as proof that god exists. Holy-spirit-is-welcome offered a passage from the bible as his falsifiability of the existence of god. See my sig on the matter. If what is in the bible can be doubted for basic veracity, then it cannot be admitted as proof on anything.
I could go on for several days about matters of biblical errancy but let me just pick apart the one bit that he cited. First Corinthians chapter 15 is one of those parts of the bible that goes on about how “if you read it in the bible, then it clearly must be true”. How self referential. Basically, the supposition is that at the time it was written, there were an untold number of dead people walking around talking to people who had not yet died. It even states the number of not yet dead witnesses at a few more than 500.
So where are these people? Can I meet with some of them at my local Starbucks this afternoon? Oh, sorry, the same chapter of the bible tells us that all the witness to these events have since died. How convenient is that? Proof of god only requires that we believe that a bunch of dead people got up and went for a walk but then up and died so that they are not available to talk to anymore. Also, all the people they talked with are dead as well.
You are of course correct that should unequivocal proof of god be found, then all bets are off for atheism. However, all bets are just as off for the faithful. After all, there will be no doubting the matter.
In any case, what form would such proof take? Youtube abounds with clips of Lance Burton doing things that no human should be capable of doing. Clearly, he is not. He is doing things that humans are capable of doing, just is such a way that we can't clearly see what he is really doing.
=
I appreciate, Answers in Gene Simmons, that the claims have inevitably spread to the standard Biblical ones, but I would still like to directly address the logic claims of the OP:
This is clearly false, since it only requires a single instance of the positive assertion to falsify it.
What IS true about an assertion that some entity or phenomenon does not exist anywhere is that it cannot be PROVED - only DISPROVED, as compared to the positive assertion, where a single instance will PROVE the assertion, whereas the exhaustive search requirement means it cannot be DISPROVED.
So it is only the POSITIVE claim of existence 'somewhere' in the universe which cannot be falsified by a practical search.
It may still be falsified in other ways, typically if the claim can be shown to be logically incoherent or contradictory.
A positive claim may be unfalsifiable in a practical sense, not a logical one, if the claim is only that it exists, AND its nature is such that it would not have a clear universal effect, or at least an effect on the particular observer or his environment. So the claim of the existence of a God which has specific persistent effects on all human life IS falsifiable, or at the least the claim that it had such an attribute would be.
For example, the claim that some specific physical substance, say methane, pervaded all of the universe, or at least all of our Solar System, at a detectable minimum density, would currently be readily falsifiable. Or a claim that there is actually a second sun of similar properties to the regular one in our solar system.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
For a claim to be falsifiable, it must entail something which can be tested for, which MUST be true if the claim is true.
The naked assertion of the existence of a God, purely as being of vast power and intelligence, is not falsifiable, since it doesn't in itself make any claims as to how the existence of such a being would manifest itself unambiguously to our observations.
However, the Bible is full of all sorts of claims about how God interacts with us. These may be falsifiable, if, for example, the claimed actions of God would inevitably produce observable effects which in fact can be shown not have occurred. This is intrinsically difficult, particularly if the effects would only have been directly observable 2000 or more years ago. Alternatively, it could be claimed that God would have absolutely prevented certain things from happening, and if it could be shown that these things had in fact happened, that would be another falsifiability.
The central event of Christianity, for example, involves no claims of clearly observable phenomea which have been left us with strong supporting evidence. The resurrection relies on some un-verifiable second or third-hand eyewitness testimony of claimed meeting with him in 'risen' form.
So, based on the opening statement "As I hope we can all agree, it is meaningless to hold something true if the belief is unfalsifiable. ", belief in God and Christ are manifestly meaningless, and Atheism is the only defensible position. Thank you for helping us clarify this, Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What puzzles me, and has for years, is how the design argument always pops up in discussions like this. I suppose we have Behe to hate for it.
The line of reasoning, and I use the term generously, seems to run " If something exists, it must be designed. ". I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could arrive at such a conclusion.
If we manage to visit extrasolar planets, we will definitely be looking for signs of intelligent life, we would look for things that we recognize as designed. Buildings, vehicles, tools, information processing technology, and things of a familiar vein. I think it safe to say that even a theist looking at the landscape of a barren planet similar to Mars would admit that it harbored no evidence of intelligent life, seeing as there is little other than rock there. This means that even they have some notion of design. Even the findings of highly structured andesite would not lead them to conclude that someone had sculpted the crystal structure. They inherently grasp that crystals are rocks, not evidence of design.
Moving to another hypothetical planet, we find vegetation and multicellular creatures capable of reproducing. No doubt here of life, but no sign of what we would recognize as intelligent life. The plants and critters just seem to be eating, being eaten, excreting, and reproducing. Missing are the drills, the houses, the flint axes, the cuneiform tablets, and the ziggurats. While something on this planet might possibly be intelligent, there is nothing there that we as humans can compare our own intelligently designed inventions to. Plants and animals exist on our own world regardless of our presence there, but cars and books are direct signs of intelligence and design. Having no other creatures to compare design features with, we are left with nothing other than our own designs with which to compare. It seems unlikely that any astronaut exploring this planet would look at the whip-like tail of one of the creatures and conclude that the creature was designed by an intelligent alien race.
On the third hypothetical planet we find large structures, many of which are made of amalgamated metals. We see wheeled objects that, while we do not understand their propulsion mechanism, seem to serve the same function as our cars. We find plates of aluminum etched with symbols, pigmented works of art, sculptures representing various identifiable forms, and even graffiti. We have at long last found evidence of intelligent life. This evidence is because of the degree of recognizable design present. We know darn good and well that trees exist without our designing them, but we also know that we design vehicles, art, and writing.
The criteria is clear; design is not based on what we find in nature, but what we ourselves have designed. We look at a beautiful painting and wonder who drew it, but we don't look at a beautiful sunrise and ask the same question. Why then do theists insist on pointing to a wristwatch and comparing it to a tree?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
There is a key difference between living creatures and our designed structures - living organisms are self-reproducing.
When coupled with evolutionary processes, emergent adaptation can then occur, no independent conscious designer required.
That is why it is dumb to compare a watch and a living creature - a watch is obviously something which cannot grow from a single cell or a seed, so it must have been 'created' by something else, which is NOT the the case with a living creature. We can actually observe the creature grow from a single cell, watch the complexity of a adult human emerge from a single fertilized cell. So we KNOW the generational growth of complexity of life is really not intrinsically more remarkable than the growth of an individual organism.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology