If something cant appear designed without a designer then they are wrong in asserting the universe has a designer without proving a designer.

Yes, putting aside the question of genuine randomness. Take a coin flip. Perhaps the result isn't designed, but the coin is, the people are, all the prerequisites for being able to see the coin are designed.

The exact order of the leaves may not be designed. But the leaves themselves are, the gravity that causes them to fall into their pattern is, the light by which we seem them, etc. So, contra AIF, I CAN TOO describe a designed universe but not an undesigned one. And nothing in that universe that can be described is completely without the appearance of design.

Mostly you are complaining that if you don't fully understand something it appears undesigned, but that doesn't follow, especially if you believe in God as an absolute person, it's almost certain that there will be much about His design that you don't understand. It's entirely possible, for instance, that the "wasted" matter is a necessary by-product of the laws God wanted for this universe, or that He wanted a large, expanding but temporal universe as that illustrates His power and glory while also demonstrating its contingent nature. The problem of evil we've dealt with many times on this forum so I won't repeat it here.

My position is that I'm right, and thus that those who disagree with me are wrong, yes.

But I wouldn't be too cocky about design's popularity in the past. Mostly founded on incompleteness of natural accounts, and we've come a long way from even a few hundred years ago. If your big swing thing is "Millions of dead illiterate peasants agreed with me", I think you've got problems anyway.

You keep saying that, but you never do it.

I'm not the cocky one who is claiming people with genius IQ's don't even know their own thoughts.

I just did.

"A designed universe is one that gives rise to gravity and light."

"So is an undesigned one."

"Damn you, Carruthers."

Description must offer distinction or it isn't description.

It seems a stretch to me to label our being able to see the coin part of the appearance of design inherent in a coin toss. How about the decay of a radioactive isotope? Is the appearance of design there our ability to build geiger counters?
Maybe I still don't get it (I'm pretty sure All-In Flynn and I are not saying the same thing, I haven't really been following the conversation you're having with him). I thought you meant the universe appears designed at first glance, not upon deeper study. When I try to consider a pile of leaves I don't think "Aha! There must have been gravity, information encoded in DNA, complex and changing yet broadly consistent weather patterns, the sun, broad chemically stability,...etcetera. Therefore this pile of leaves looks designed." I just think it looks like a random jumble of leaves. It now seems to me you're saying that, no matter how random anything appears, once you study it closer there is design implicit underneath the various phenomena. Whilst that is (in my mind) more defensible, it's not what most people mean by 'the world looks designed'. That's why they point to eyes and watches, not piles of leaves and radioactive decay.
I agree with all of this, I'm not really complaining merely talking about my expectations (admittedly the expectations of a limited mind). Again - I was considering your original claim to be that the universe appears designed on the surface. Obviously I don't think all those things I listed have no explanation if a designer exists, because I also believe there is a designer.

I think there is an unknown answer as to why he designed the universe with some elements in it which attempt to thwart his purpose. I also think there's some reason I can't discern explaining why he would be benevolent and yet allow suffering. If I was given a blank slate and asked what to expect from a designer though - I wouldn't pick that he'd make a world which willingly went against what he wanted.

I wouldn't characterise your position as "The universe appears designed" since the examples you give seem to involve a lot more than first appearances. I would characterise it more as "The universe is inexplicable without a designer" (A claim I know you have also made).

My only real comment in all this is not an argument for or against God's existence, nor against the rationality of belief based on apparent design. It is that when I look around at the world some of what I see appears to be the result of design and some of what I see appears to have happened by chance. When I look closer, I sometimes find myself shifting my opinion as I study any given phenomenon. Broadly I don't disagree with your main point that, if you think the universe appears designed, it's rational to think there's a designer. I still think there's a danger that one might adopt that view, then leap on any findings of science which bring order and make design more probable whilst doubting those which tend to suggest randomness or chance. I don't think that's a correct use of religion (just as I dont think disproving God is a correct use of science).

I didn't read this edit before. It probably would have helped. I don't think they're wrong, since 'appearance of design' seems like a subjective call anyhow (until we get some clear criteria - Jibninjas has had a go at it in this thread, but I think he's got some way to go yet).

I will confess to the common scientific experience of finding the argument from design less and less persuasive the more physics I learnt. However, those who think the universe doesnt appear designed are no real threat are they? Isn't it just a matter of 'starting point'?

I should have said I can describe a universe that appears to be designed. Ok reset. Start again.






I just did.

Of course appearance is subjective. "The universe appears designed to me. I find that if something looks designed it usually is, and if it is, there is always a designer. Therefore, I believe there is a designer."

Of course, AIF will then laughably tell me the universe doesn't appear designed to me. Not much of a threat.

Like I said this forum is the only place I've heard that asserted. And I don't regard anyone on this forum as a threat to theism.

The issue is how much effort are we putting into figuring out how things "appear". The Earth appears flat and the sun appears to go around it. People do not have a good track record of getting correct answers without studying things in detail. I would put the universe appears designed on the same level as the other 2 examples, in the sense that it is a level 1 analysis that could be totally wrong.

I show you my new ring and you say, "What a pretty diamond." I then tell you, it isn't a diamond, it is moissanite (assume that you can't distinguish by looking). Now, does it still appear to you as a diamond?

It looks like a diamond. But it also looks like moissanite. Since you can't distinguish by looking, you might say, it looks like a diamond or moissanite.

Apply this to AIF's argument. He shows you a universe and you say, "This universe looks designed." However, this universe was not designed, but is indistinguishable from a designed universe. Now, does the universe still look like it was designed? If we take the answer above, we would say that this universe looks like it was designed or not designed, which is an empty statement.

No matter what you tell me about the ring you can never show that there is no design at all involved.

At this time, after thinking some more about the issue, I have a final statement.

That the universe has the appearance of design is extremely well attested throughout history, including today. Dawkins the ardent atheist writes a book to EXPLAIN the apparent design of biological life. Hawkings who appears to be a less vocal atheist or at least agnostic and has said that his theories make a cause of the universe unnecessary writes a book called, not The Grand Chaos or The Grand Gee How Lucky We Are That All This Stuff Works Together, but THE GRAND wait for it ... ok, ready? DESIGN.

The premise that there is appearance of design forms part of most teleological arguments. If an argument is valid and the premises are true then the conclusion is true. A well formulated teleological argument will be valid thus the only thing that can be done to avoid the conclusion is to deny the premise. I've said all I can think of to show the appearance premise is plausible, more plausible than its negation (that there is no appearance of design) and if you really, truly, genuinely don't see that then you are beyond my ability to argue or demonstrate or show or persuade. You will have to face God at the judgment and say "I really didn't see any appearance of design in your universe". Better you than me.

Any God who would condemn for honest confusion is not worth the paper hes written on.