To me the problem with these discussions is that nobody really articulates what 'an appearance of design' would be like. From this post, maybe you mean that regularity, symmetry or some other kind of pattern is 'the appearance of design' (correct me if this is wrong).

My objection to this is that 'appearance of design' should be some feature which we would expect to see in something designed but not in something which was not designed. Given what we now know about snowflakes - regularity, symmetry or whatever it was is now not something which qualifies (as you put it design 'drops out of the picture'). I would maintain that, given what we now know of evolution - the different forms of life we observe are also not 'appearance of design' as it seems a logical necessity, given the existence of DNA and the laws of logic - though prior to Darwin, perhaps it would have seen that the peculiar suiting of animals to their environments would indeed qualify.

So what set of properties exactly does constitute 'appearance of design'? If it's some subjective judgement then it's probably going to resolve to 'atheists think it doesnt look designed, theists think it does' or something else equally unhelpful.

If the universe is designed how can you cant take a part of it, like a snowflake, and say its undesigned.

We're talking about appearance, not whether it actually is designed or not. What properties does something which 'appears to be designed' have which something which doesnt 'appear to be designed' not have?

Sure.

Well this is the thing. It could well be perceived as having properties which, in and of themselves, imply design.

Right, in this analogue, the perception of the snowflake as having these properties crumbles once we've learned enough about the phenomenon - our perception of the snowflake as must-have-been-designed was based on our ignorance of what a snowflake is.

Well I'm not in a position to jump into cutting-edge physics. But if the argument supposes a case where there can never be any establishment of inevitability, you have not really resolved the issue. Let me make a further analogy (one I stole from Original Position): Suppose I show you a bag of clear, brilliant stones. I ask you what they look like and you say they look like diamonds. I ask you if that is because of how you perceive them, or because of their properties. You tell me it's their properties, and point to their attributes: translucency; hardness; solidity; brilliance and so on. But then I tell you they are in fact made from cubic zirconia. Now what appearance do the stones have? We can describe their "possible appearances" - say that they look both like diamond and like cubic zirconia. But all we are doing is reporting the range of positions our perceptions of the stones can prompt us to hold. Their properties are ambiguous or neutral on the subject.

I think that this is really the case with your argument. All you've really done is take the present situation of inferring design from lack of alternatives and remove the possibility of those alternatives. Which doesn't speak to the validity of the initial inference.

I also don't see any reason to believe that these fortuitous parameters represent more than just further intricacies of the snowflake's pattern, but that's incidental and could easily be wrong anyway.

I know thats what you are talking about. I was just saying something i have never understood about some theists when the design argument comes up.

They will say the universe appears designed and then point to a thing in it and say it appears undesigned. Like a rock or a snowflake. Its confusing.

AIF tried to make this point in our dialogue by asking me to describe a universe that doesn't have the appearance of design.

The problem is that it's impossible to describe anything that has no element of design appearance. If something can be described, that fact alone gives it that appearance, because in order to be described, it must have some element of structure, however slight, and anything with structure has the design appearance. I could say that a mountain, as a mountain, doesn't appear to be designed, but it is made up of stuff that at some level does have the appearance. So if a universe was composed of stuff that could be described in any meaningful way, no matter how random and unarranged that stuff might appear, the stuff would itself have some design appearance.

Anyway, I don't think it's incumbent on me to prove there is appearance of design. Even die hard atheists like Dawkins admit to that appearance. The very title of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, admits to that, and of course he goes into a long explanation of why he feels the need to explain the appearance. The point in this thread is I've never seen anyone claim there is no appearance of design, except AIF. Take if for what it's worth.

Ah, sorry. Yeah I agree, it doesnt make sense to me either.

Excellent explanation and it shows why it's a rational observation to draw that there is a super being when this order is observed even if science could prove randomness beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Let all things be done decently and in order." 1 Cor. 14:40 (KJV)

I'm someone else who thinks there isnt any appearance of design, but I suspect that's partly because I dont really know what it means. The reason I dont think it 'appears designed' is because everything I've observed and understood deeply enough seems like it could have happened without a designer. As I said above - what I'm looking for is a set of properties designed things have which undesigned things dont. I cant think of any property or set of properties which fits the bill.

If I take your first paragraph literally, it seems you're saying that 'appearance of design' means 'able to be described'. I have two objections to this - the first being that, as you point out, there isnt really anything we can talk about which doesnt have this property so 'appearance of design' applies to pretty much everything, which seems a little question begging to me. Of more serious concern though is that 'able to be described' seems like the concept you're really talking about. I dont see why we should expect a designer just because something is able to be described. Havent you just renamed it 'appearance of design' in order to create this logical link?

Wait that is your point now? What happened to atheism -> moral nihilism do not pass GO? Also the physiology point raised a few posts up is a good one. Even if atheism told people to have no conscience and be sociopaths (it doesn't), my brain would not allow for me to become that beast. I would not be able to go through with anything remotely evil and would be mentally scarred for life if I did.

Keep plugging along man. And thanks to AIF and OpR for really pinpointing and distilling your philosophical failures, will make arguing with my other theistard friends much easier. And nice bail out job on this thread. All you ever try to do is show how reasonable Christianity is though, right?

No. It doesn't at all. The order could be an illusion. Super being is a weasel phrase to smuggle in attributes about this alleged order, which could be mindless. I am not even sure this is a complete thought on your part.

Seriously can the mods please restrict Splendour to the prayer thread? She adds nothing to any of these threads but random bible noise.

No. If there is the appearance of design and your mind perceives that then your mind is functioning rationally and drawing a rational impression.

I know I hit a nerve when the cheap insults start to fly.

Why don't you go away tpir? You haven't been in here posting on religious topics since you posted in SMP almost 4 years ago. Not unless you've been sok puppeting under another avatar name that is. You can take your act back to SMP instead of acting arrogant in here. BTW that's one of the reasons for the creation of a new religion forum.

Also wake up. This is a poker forum. If you want to trade posts with atheists only you should frequent an atheist only forum. Lots of theists play poker. Remember Texas Dolly. How about Jerry Yang...or did you forget them?

Well, that's depressing.

I probably havent explained it very well then. I dont think it appears undesigned either, if that's any help. I'm just unclear on how to distinguish between designed and undesigned based on appearance.

'Has structure' = 'Appears designed'

But 'Has structure' is implied by 'Exists'

So your own argument indicates that everything that could possibly exist, ever, possesses this mysteriously nondescript characteristic you term "the appearance of design". Nothing, you tell us, ever could appear otherwise. Everything that could ever exist must appear designed. You fail in articulating the property while calling its very meaning into question.

You've seen other people defend my stance for sure.