Why do humans perceive design?

[313_Waiter]

Atheists often say design argument is falsifiable with the existence of phenomena that does not appear to be designed. E.g. tailbones, nails, circumcision

Though this is them superimposing their preconceived opinion that the intent of the design is for it to be perfect. In Sadrian terms, all "things" only reach a level of perfection, and that Absolute Perfection is only with God.  

But let's go further, the human ability to notice patterns, where does it come from?

Albeit in and of itself not a philosophical argument for God, a valid question to ponder on.

[Eddie Mecca]

20 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

the human ability to notice patterns, where does it come from?

Atheists, secularists, Satanists etc. will claim that we're superimposing patterns in nature where they don't actually exist..."unmotivated seeing of connections (accompanied by) a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness" as Klaus Conrad put it...we're delusional they claim...delusional thought as self-referential over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions etc.

[Cool]

On 3/25/2023 at 1:00 PM, 313_Waiter said:

Atheists often say design argument is falsifiable with the existence of phenomena that does not appear to be designed. E.g. tailbones, nails, circumcision

If you consider human eye, heart, ears or the DNA and assess the possibility of these things accidently, by chance or spontaneously, your intellect would never accept that stance. 

Intelligent design does not propagate that every feature of the world constitute evidence of intelligent design rather it considers "various" empirical features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God's existence as the best explanation for these features.

So if anyone say that human eye evolved from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms, one would remain equally unable to get a clue of how that simple light sensor came into existence spontaneously. 

So design argument certainly holds a weight and that's why we find in Quran verses where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) proudly mentioning this:

وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ

On 3/25/2023 at 1:00 PM, 313_Waiter said:

the human ability to notice patterns, where does it come from?

This is an example of ilm-e-husooli. Your ability to "notice" patterns, in a sense, is linked with the very reason of the existence of patterns around you. 

Wassalam!!

[313_Waiter]

1 hour ago, Cool said:

Your ability to "notice" patterns, in a sense, is linked with the very reason of the existence of patterns around you. 

Could it be said that our ability our ability to notice patterns is itself a pattern or sign?

[Haji 2003]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:41 PM, Cool said:

Intelligent design does not propagate that every feature of the world constitute evidence of intelligent design rather it considers "various" empirical features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God's existence as the best explanation for these features.

I'll accept what you say about the intelligent design perspective, I don't know enough about it to argue either way.

However, would an Islamic perspective hold that nothing which exists came about based on random chance and that the design of everything was deliberate.

Here I would imagine that the epistemological perspectives of atheists and theists differ.

For atheists, if they cannot prove that something had a creator, then that's a score against there being a creator. For the theist, on the other hand, it isn't; it's just proof that we are not looking at the right evidence or not looking at it in the correct manner.

[Cool]

On 4/11/2023 at 6:48 PM, 313_Waiter said:

our ability to notice patterns is itself a pattern or sign?

Well, I am not sure about it. What is seems to me is that there are patterns even in learning skills. Can we say that the learning skill itself is a pattern? This requires in depth thoughts. 

 

[Cool]

7 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

For atheists, if they cannot prove that something had a creator, then that's a score against there being a creator.

I think I need to present a different view of atheism i.e., their belief that once you have involved any supernatural being or entity in the understanding of natural phenomena, you have closed the doors of research and closed the access to reach to the scientific understanding of that phenomena. 

So they never involve God anywhere. Nor they view anything as natural as the evidence of supernatural. They however guess, and one of the example of their guess is the existence of "universal common ancestor" which they have coined after viewing the similarities (for instance the DNA) in the design and structure of living things in this world.