Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit
cjuepa

What Evidence at atomic Level is not Designed?

I understand atheistic logic, however I still believe in cause and effect, even if you don't call it God. Just asking to try and understand.

Report as

The better question would be what evidence there IS of "design".

In science you don't start with a big assumption like that and try to disprove it. In science we take the evidence THEN make a conclusion. There is no evidence of design, so that isn't the conclusion made.

To claim design, one must already assume a designer exists, which is circular logic. In addition, you are working without a control- how can you claim the universe looks designed when you don't have another, "undersigned" universe to compare it to?
Essentially design arguments all boil down to the Argument from Ignorance fallacy- if it isn't understood right now, the answer must be "god". Doesn't fly.

You may also want to note that at the quantum level, causality breaks down so "cause" and "effect" don't apply.

In addition, please note there is no such thing as "atheistic logic". Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, unrelated to science.

Helpful (6) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (12)
Report as
cjuepa
One of your science colleagues once commented that life came from outer space. (British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle). but then when discussing amino acids one day also said " “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”. Why do such distinguished people like this man make comments like this from your end of the spectrum? Just asking.
Report as
Liar!! (Or you were just misled). I doubt Sir Fred Hoyle would consider me one of his colleagues. But what you have just demonstrated is quote mining.
Report as
cjuepa
Is there anything wrong with quote mining?
Report as
cjuepa
I quote because my opinion has no weight.
Report as
Hold on, I'm not a believer but there is abundant evidence (maybe not admissible evidence) of design.
For a start, 2 8 8 2 pattern of filling shells of electrons for the first 20 elements
What about the whole patternality of the periodic table ?
How about R^3/T^2 is the same for all planetary bodies Mercury to Neptune ?
How come proton electron attraction is described by the simplest formulas ie F=KQq/r^2...?
And why is mutual gravitation the same form F=GMm/r^2...?
The whole of science is underpinned by amazingly simple equations
How about E=mc^2 .. so amazing !

Report as
Yes. You're removing the quote from its context, thereby changing its meaning.
Report as
Hoyle was also shown wrong and misused statistics for things not subject to simple mathematical probability.

Indeed, he missed the very basic lesson that one can not retroactively designate probability to a complex outcome that has already happened- it's probability is 1.

In addition, Hoyle was not a chemist or biologist and therefore has no authority on those fields, just as I have none in, say, engineering.

If he was, he'd know that abiogenesis and evolution do not involve blind chance at all. Hence the "selection" in natural selection.
Report as
You also seem to miss that he's still succumbing to the Argument from Personal Incredulity/Ignorance- he doesn't get it/believe it, therefore god. Doesn't fly.

Just because one does not understand something does not mean the answer is magic. Not does it mean that's in any way evidence FOR design. "I don't see how it could work, therefore a god must have designed it" is not evidence of anything except that the speaker doesn't understand how it works.
Report as
Good job skepti.
Report as
cjuepa
So Skepti you know how it works...Please explain how it works... I am listening
Report as
cjuepa
Please don't tell me to look at some site. As you are convinced of your views then can you please share. I am keen on hearing ones actually explain there stance on things they themselves claim to believe.
Report as
Explain how what works? Evolution? Abiogenesis? Do you know how long that would take? It takes me an entire semester to teach my students the basics of evolution, and you want it in under 1200 characters?
Ask a more specific question.

You still are also dodging the main points I made. You can't claim design without providing evidence of said design and not just "I don't get it therefore". You must provide evidence of how you would know something was designed in the first place, and rove a designer exists with evidence to claim design is even possible. Otherwise, you're just begging the question.
Report as
Add a comment...

I think you're asking for evidence of randomness.

I must admit that as we face concepts such as
- mass and energy are the same thing,
- that time and space are the same (!) and
- that one electron can spend equal time in two regions without any way from one to the other..(quantum mechanics)
One is looking at seemingly miraculous things !

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Atheist logic if I understand your use of the term, or what I would call evidence based reasoning, has everything to do with cause and effect. For every thing that happens there is a rational effect. It may beyond our ability to explain everything, or account details that we did not observe but there are real things and facts in the world. This has nothing to do with any theological intervention. The way the world works, has to do with how things relate to each other and how the world works. How things are is how things are. But the original position is that there is no god. And there never was any actual evidence that there ever was a god. In an argument, the burden of proof is on the party that is trying to prove a position. And there is no evidence that supports any intelligent design model. The real question is what evidence on any level supports an intelligent design?

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I understand your confusion of atheism and logic. Often, it does seem like they are exactly the same thing. But I think you would disagree with everyone saying "Creationist nonsense", even though the same comparison between the two can be made.

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches