What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?

Hello again doubting too, was away for the latter part of last week, so here's my somewhat delayed response. Wow...just wow.... OK, right, since there's been enough ridiculing this statement already, I will simply ask you to provide any evidence for:
a)There was a designer for fruit.
b)That his goal was to make all fruit taste different.
c)That we would in fact DIE of boredom if all fruits tasted the same. Yes, yet you have failed to show there actually IS a goal, again you simply assert it here. To discuss who the designer might be, you first have to show that he designed anything at all, else there's no point in speculating on who he might be. I agree of course that if there was a designer AND his identity was known, then we wouldn't need to discuss it, but that's not really the case, now is it? Ok, fine, but don't expect people to just swallow everything you say. Just because you THINK it is right doesn't mean it IS, that would require showing evidence.

---

I hunt for the truth

You are the TEMPTER! ( really a complement, my friend). I broke my promise again. But, for the interest of those who want to know more, please follow this link: http//Page not found - John Templeton FoundationThe question raised was : Does the universe have a purpose?The answers from these men of science ranged from No, Unlikely, Perhaps, Yes, Certainly, etc. Fine reading.My friend, I could use the previous argument you posted to bolster my argument. But, I would prefer that the reader go to that link. It is to my mind, NEUTRAL.Think again: if all fruits tasted like banana, it would be boring. Boredom kills. So, the Purposer / Designer of the fruit did it... so that ungrateful men would enjoy and have life, instead.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Hello Huntard and the rest of the gang,Page not found - John Templeton FoundationHere is a sampling of portions of their answers: They were talking about the universe having a purpose--and that's a big thing. What would be their answer to the question: Why does not all fruits taste like banana--is there a PURPOSE to that? Hmm..

If vegetables are so good for us and fat and sugar are so bad why do strawberry cheesecake and chocolate taste so good whilst brussel sprouts and lentils seem so unappealing? Why are drugs addictive but cucumber not?Whoever designed that is a bastard. What purpose did they have for that?

'Cause it never did that, y'think? Non sequitur.

As Straggler has pointed out there are examples where there is an apparent negative purpose to many things (if one is to assume a purpose). If there is a purpose how then do you go about explaining the vast number of examples that could be provided where the 'purpose' appears to be decidedly negative? Did the creator make a mistake in creation and not make positive purposes to all things or was there two creators, apparently working together, but with different goals? (one to make apparent 'good' purpose to some things and another to make 'bad' purpose to all others)It should be obvious to you that when assigning purpose to one example that hundreds of counter examples can be provided that put into question the whole 'omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God' idea. Did you simply not think of that or did you perhaps think that nobody would notice such a fundamental blunder? Its not to say that I have not seen a few blunders take place on EvC, it just seems that if you can explain such an apparent problem in your argument now would be a good time to get around to it.

Thank you Breaking a promise for a good reason is OK in my book, I'll check out your link, I will however not debate it here, since it's kinda against the forum rules. Ok, so it's undoubtedly a nice read, but as far as an argument goes, it's worthless, as it's an appeal to authority. How would you go about bolstering your argument with a counter-argument? Again, I'm sure the link is fascinating, but it's still bare speculation. Boredom DOES NOT kill. I'm bored from time to time, yet I'm still here. I don't even eat that much fruit (I know, I'm a bad boy) So even if I did eat some from time to time and it tasted like banana, I wouldn't mind one bit.

---

I hunt for the truth

Right, let's have a little look, shall we: I think this is quite right, science can never PROVE there is no designer. However looking at the current state of things, there is NOTHING that points to there being one. If you want to believe that there is one, fine, but don't go shouting that it's "obvious" cause it isn't. Bolding mine.
See, he BELIEVES there is a purpose, he doesn't say, this and that POINTS to there being a purpose, no, he BELIEVES there is. In other words, it's an assertion. Bit of a pessimist isn't he? Talking about how dark and evil the universe is. But, as I'm sure you have noted, this is his personal BELIEF, not an undeniable fact. The god of the bible is as much made in man's image as the pagan gods. Because that's beneficial for the survival of the species. Yes, it is, and as I'm sure you've noted, neither of them provide ANY evidence for it having a purpose. Well, I'm pretty sure the first guy would look at you very strangely when you asked him that, in fact, I think the other one would also.Again, I don;t eat that many fruit, so if all fruit tasted like banana, I wouldn't care. Furthermore, I get bored once and again, and I certainly don't kill myself in those moments, nor would I kill myself over anything as silly as all fruit tasting like bananas.

---

I hunt for the truth

Except that there is a whole universe, life, intelligence and consciousness, that allegedly self-created themselves. I wish money would start self-creating itself, it would be fun, right? You believe in miracles, that should be a religion by itself.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Fun? That would destroy the ENTIRE economy, since money would become worthless.And I don't see how a universe creating itself points to a designer.

---

I hunt for the truth

You've just said - "And I don't see how a pool of energy creating itself into a universe and life points to a designer".When you think of universe and life, have a look around your room. What a wonderful coincidence that energy managed to turn itself into a house for your 100 trillion cells human body by chance. What a wonderful coincidence that energy can create a mother and father for you. What a wonderful coincidence that energy created a planet for you that could sustain your existence. What a great coincidence that energy managed to turn itself into computers that we can use to communicate over the internet. But wait - what are you? If you know the answer to this question, you've unlocked all the mysteries.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

I'm not sure I'm following you, if it created ITSELF, there is no outside creator, now is there. Unless you're meaning the universe itself is the creator.As to what I am, I'd say nothing more then a collection of atoms and energy. I don't feel particularly enlightened by that though. There are still enough mysteries left for me.

---

I hunt for the truth

It surely created itself, it's just that your description is not thourough. What you believe in, is not possible without a blueprint, physical laws and some constants(which couldn't come from anywhere but a creator). Your belief is religious and is the product of an overly secular society of which i am a part as well, but the efforts to keep the idea of creators aside is worthwhile. The ultimate truth of reality is creepy. You are not just atoms and energy(which are the same thing BTW). You have no idea how much more you are and how little you are from a different perspective. The difference between the 2 is what you call "I". That difference is so hard to explain that you cannot but agree with Einstein:"We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us."Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

If there has to be a first "uncaused cause" according to your thinking why would you not conclude that the one thing that you know exists is it?On what basis would you conclude a yet more complex phenomenon that itself is even more unlikely to be uncaused? Especially given that there is no rational or evidenced reason to suppose this even more complex phenomenon actually exists?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Because we are mortals, and because we didn't create ourselves. We are not even owners of what we think we are(your all body morphology wasn't chosen by you, it was given to you whether you like it or). We are just a product, a result of a chain of events. Evidence? The little speck of energy that floats into an ocean of energy that it calls an universe wants evidence for the source of the energy? It almost sounds romantic. I wish we could establish a connection with the creators, i bet what you call science can do that one day.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein