the universe is designed

[harriet_tubman]

One doesn't prove atheism. First of all, it can't be done. Second, there's no need. Failure to prove theism - that's all atheism needs, and there's no shortage of that.

this is agnosticism not atheism.  atheism is the belief that the universe is an accident.  on dawkins scale of 1 to 7, 7 being 100% certain the universe is an accident, 4 being agnostic, what are you?  i'm a 2.

On topic: The point you seem to have missed about the 'fine tuning' of the universe is that, if it were any other way, it would be just as 'fine tuned' to whatever that looked like. The fact that life exists in this universe is a [fortunate] byproduct of how the universe happened to form. If it had formed differently, life may not have come about or it might have come about differently; but it formed as it did and here we are. The idea that it proves, or even suggests a designer presupposes that there's an intended reason for life to exist as it is, that there's some end to the 'means' of our existence. I see nothing to suggest that is the case.

let's take stonehenge. is there any evidence that it was designed by human beings?  and you can't say that some human artifacts buried near it is proof that it was designed by humans because it's not.  the only thing to suggest that stonehenge is fine-tuned is that we humans know what fine-tuning looks like and we know what random forces are capable of.  random forces can not build something like stone henge, nor can they tweak the universe's conditions such that complex life can arise.

What does your designer want?

he certainly does not want his design to fail otherwise we wouldn't be here.

[Whitney]

One doesn't prove atheism. First of all, it can't be done. Second, there's no need. Failure to prove theism - that's all atheism needs, and there's no shortage of that.

this is agnosticism not atheism.  atheism is the belief that the universe is an accident.  on dawkins scale of 1 to 7, 7 being 100% certain the universe is an accident, 4 being agnostic, what are you?  i'm a 2.

you are misrepresenting the scale...7 is "I know and can prove that there is no god" it has very little to do with what one thinks about the universe even though that may follow from one's position towards god.

Atheist is someone who is not a theist...ie, someone who does not believe in god.  Looks like you need to check out the "for theists, what is an atheist thread"

not to mention that in order for the universe to be an "accident" that something would have had to screw up in order to cause it to exist...therefore, only theists can view the universe as an accident.

[harriet_tubman]

actually it does.  imagine this thought experiment.  first, do you agree with hawking that if the strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, speed of light, strength of gravity as well as others if they were different than the universe would collapse like a house of cards?  second, let's assume for the sake of argument, that you're right, that there are other tiny ranges in which life can arise, that would be very hard to prove or disprove but let's give the atheists the benefit of the doubt that that can happen.  now let's say there are 3 universes, one is the parthenon, the other is the pantheon, the third is the eiffel tower.  all three are enormously complex, though much less complex than our universe, and all of them will collapse if a few bricks here and there are removed.  now let's say that you are a living being inhabiting those universes but you're not intelligent enough to observe the structure of the building you live in which is the predicament man was in right up until about 1950 more or less.  now let's say you finally learned enough about science so that you could observe the intricate shape of the building you lived in and you saw how amazingly intricate, fine-tuned and complex it really was.  anyone who sees the eiffel tower immediately concludes that it is designed.  you don't just throw a million dice out into the void and expect them to form a pyramid.

you didn't answer my thought experiment, Jill Swift.  if you found out you were living in the parthenon, would you conclude the parthenon is an accident?

The problem with teleology (as I mention in my sig) is: If everything is designed, what does not-designed look like?

pick up a 100 rocks and throw them with no aim to form anything, do the 100 rocks form a design? seems pretty obvious.

If complexity can be part of randomness, how does complexity disprove randomness?

designs are equipped with interrelated parts that work together.  randomness is not.

If this particular set of circumstances are one in X, then all other circumstances are equally unlikely.

not true.  let's say the odds of a monkey writing an intelligible english sentence longer than 20 words with no grammar mistakes and makes sense, is one in a trillion.  so we have two possibilities, sense or no sense.  the odds of sense is one in a trillion, the odds of no sense is 999,999,999,999 in 1,000,000,000,000, which is rather easy to hit.  atheist will say yea, but what if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times sooner or later it will be hit.  that's not accurate.  it's more you have to roll a hundred sided dice once every minute for a 100 years and each time you have to hit the right number.  think about building a car, it requires about a thousand steps.  each step requires a precise action.  if any of those actions is wrong, the car fails.  

If this is an argument about how unlikely this arrangement is, would all other possible circumstances also suggest agency?

no they wouldn't.

In short, you've just argued "from personal incredulity", as I said. In short, because you can't accept that complexity can arise without a designer, you posit a designer.

you've misused the argument from incredulity.  let's say we're in plato's cave and i say this universe is designed but i have no evidence and you say the opposite but i too have no evidence.  then we exit the cave and we find out we were living in the parthenon.  i say that the parthenon is designed.  you say, no it's not.  then i too can use the argument from personal incredulity. i can say to you: just because you can't imagine how it was designed does not mean it's not designed.  

this is the correct way to use the argument from personal incredulity.  let's say you're an american and you believe that soldiers in afghanistan are doing good, then i show you evidence that they've dropped five bombs on wedding parties in the last five months.  and you say: "i can't believe that."  that's the argument from personal incredulity: refusing to believe something just because you can't imagine it. in short belief in something for which there is no evidence.  

i disbelieve that a fine-tuned instrument can be formed by blind forces because i've never seen blind forces, such as wind, or ocean waves, form complex instruments.

I don't remember trying to prove atheism. All I'm doing is poking holes in your argument. I've got nothing to prove (literally).  

[/quote]
then you're an agnostic and you have no business being an atheist.

[harriet_tubman]

How can you assume anything is "fine tuned" without first knowing there is a being to do the fine tuning?  

take a look at stonehenge.  you don't need to know anything about life on earth to know it's designed.  if we were traveling through space and we encountered this binary code
100100100100100100100
we immediately know that it's not random

Snowflakes form patterns that are very complex (and pretty) yet form randomly...it wouldn't be right to call them fine tuned yet your way of thinking would lead us to that description.

true, snowflakes are complex but even the simplest life form, the eukaryote, is probably a million times more complex than a snowflake.  moreover the snowflake is not made up of parts that interact with one another.

As has already been said, life wouldn't exist if conditions didn't allow for life to exist.

true, but proves nothing about atheism

Something working is not fine tuning...it just means it works.

on the contrary, fine-tuning is the placement of parts into precise locations so that they interact with other parts to achieve a goal.  only intelligence can do that.

[harriet_tubman]

you are misrepresenting the scale...7 is "I know and can prove that there is no god" it has very little to do with what one thinks about the universe even though that may follow from one's position towards god.

when i use the word God i am referring to that intelligence responsible for the universe's creation. as an atheist you do not believe this is the case.

not to mention that in order for the universe to be an "accident" that something would have had to screw up in order to cause it to exist...therefore, only theists can view the universe as an accident.

accident means not intended. atheists do not believe the cosmos was the result of an intelligent intention.

[JillSwift]

you didn't answer my thought experiment, Jill Swift.  if you found out you were living in the parthenon, would you conclude the parthenon is an accident?

What do I have to compare it to?

pick up a 100 rocks and throw them with no aim to form anything, do the 100 rocks form a design? seems pretty obvious.

Yes, it's obvious things put out at random to often form designs. Constellations, for instance. Snowflakes. Galena crystals. Clouds.

designs are equipped with interrelated parts that work together.  randomness is not.

Why not? If a given pattern exists, the pattern can be formed at random.

not true.  let's say the odds of a monkey writing an intelligible english sentence longer than 20 words with no grammar mistakes and makes sense, is one in a trillion.  so we have two possibilities, sense or no sense.  the odds of sense is one in a trillion, the odds of no sense is 999,999,999,999 in 1,000,000,000,000, which is rather easy to hit.  atheist will say yea, but what if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times sooner or later it will be hit.  that's not accurate.  it's more you have to roll a hundred sided dice once every minute for a 100 years and each time you have to hit the right number.  think about building a car, it requires about a thousand steps.  each step requires a precise action.  if any of those actions is wrong, the car fails.  

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. "Car" is a given pattern. It is Xc in set Y, which is all the possible combinations. Xc is as likely as any other X. That one gives more value to Xc than other values for X doesn't make Xc less likely.

no they wouldn't.

Only because you have chosen to value one pattern over the others.

you've misused the argument from incredulity.  let's say we're in plato's cave and i say this universe is designed but i have no evidence and you say the opposite but i too have no evidence.  then we exit the cave and we find out we were living in the parthenon.  i say that the parthenon is designed.  you say, no it's not.  then i too can use the argument from personal incredulity. i can say to you: just because you can't imagine how it was designed does not mean it's not designed.

You're putting words in my mouth. You made the positive claim, I'm questioning your claim rather than offering an opposing claim. Stop making such assumptions.

this is the correct way to use the argument from personal incredulity.  let's say you're an american and you believe that soldiers in afghanistan are doing good, then i show you evidence that they've dropped five bombs on wedding parties in the last five months.  and you say: "i can't believe that."  that's the argument from personal incredulity: refusing to believe something just because you can't imagine it. in short belief in something for which there is no evidence.  

Which is what you are doing, with inverse parameters. Positing a belief based on a refusal to accept a possibility, also without evidence.

i disbelieve that a fine-tuned instrument can be formed by blind forces because i've never seen blind forces, such as wind, or ocean waves, form complex instruments.

The very definition of the argument from incredulity.

then you're an agnostic and you have no business being an atheist.

That conclusion is a non-sequitur. I haven't defined my beliefs or lack of beliefs to you at all. I was saying that in the context of this discussion I've made no claims and so have nothing to prove. You keep trying to make the claim that "atheism" hasn't been "proven" to myself and others, but no one here is trying to prove a negative. All we are doing is using the null hypothesis.

[elliebean]

this is agnosticism not atheism.  atheism is the belief that the universe is an accident.  on dawkins scale of 1 to 7, 7 being 100% certain the universe is an accident, 4 being agnostic, what are you?  i'm a 2.

Shit. I guess we need to rename the forum.  

let's take stonehenge. is there any evidence that it was designed by human beings?  and you can't say that some human artifacts buried near it is proof that it was designed by humans because it's not.  the only thing to suggest that stonehenge is fine-tuned is that we humans know what fine-tuning looks like and we know what random forces are capable of.  random forces can not build something like stone henge, nor can they tweak the universe's conditions such that complex life can arise.

I don't think you do know what random forces are capable of.

What does your designer want?

he certainly does not want his design to fail otherwise we wouldn't be here.

[Squid]

I think the problem here seems to be the use of the operative terms "accident" and "random".  When using the term "accident" most people will think of it in relation to an "unforeseen event resulting resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance" (Merriam-Webster) when I think HT means to equate it to chance.  However this assumes complete randomness without the constraints of any type of physical laws - that is the properties of the universe.  For instance, gravity will always work in a particular manner and will not exhibit complete randomness - does this imply design?  To those who think it does, it is proof - to others it is simply constraint by the laws of physics.

As to the capability of "random forces":



They can resemble what we consider intelligence to produce.  This is not the result of design but natural factors working within the constraints of physical laws.

[harriet_tubman]

you didn't answer my thought experiment, Jill Swift.  if you found out you were living in the parthenon, would you conclude the parthenon is an accident?

What do I have to compare it to?

you just have to use common sense.  first do you admit that it is a proper analogy?  do you believe with stephen hawking the cosmos is more fine-tuned than the parthenon?  second, let's say you couldn't really see the architecture of the universe then one day you could because some smart scientist like stephen hawking told you it was, much like finding out you lived in the parthenon and then one day you saw the parthenon, would you assume that the parthenon was built by wind?  

pick up a 100 rocks and throw them with no aim to form anything, do the 100 rocks form a design? seems pretty obvious.

Yes, it's obvious things put out at random to often form designs. Constellations, for instance. Snowflakes. Galena crystals. Clouds.

clouds are hardly on the same degree of complexity as say the human brain.

designs are equipped with interrelated parts that work together.  randomness is not.

Why not? If a given pattern exists, the pattern can be formed at random.

point to me a pattern formed at random, complete with interrelated parts, that has a function and achieves an object.  when was the last time you threw a handful of 10 pebbles and they formed a design?

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. "Car" is a given pattern. It is Xc in set Y, which is all the possible combinations. Xc is as likely as any other X. That one gives more value to Xc than other values for X doesn't make Xc less likely.

getting back to my monkey example do you think it's just as likely for a monkey to type the sentence: should i compare thee to a summer's day is likely as the monkey typing gibberish?  you can't possible believe this.  i must be misunderstanding you.

You made the positive claim, I'm questioning your claim rather than offering an opposing claim. Stop making such assumptions.

are you certain that the universe was not designed?

this is the correct way to use the argument from personal incredulity.  let's say you're an american and you believe that soldiers in afghanistan are doing good, then i show you evidence that they've dropped five bombs on wedding parties in the last five months.  and you say: "i can't believe that."  that's the argument from personal incredulity: refusing to believe something just because you can't imagine it. in short belief in something for which there is no evidence.  

Which is what you are doing, with inverse parameters. Positing a belief based on a refusal to accept a possibility, also without evidence.

i have evidence.  my evidence is that it takes intelligence to create a design, and that random forces routinely fail to design anything.  the atheist evidence is that natural selection can create a design but the claims of evolution are false which we'll discuss shortly.

i disbelieve that a fine-tuned instrument can be formed by blind forces because i've never seen blind forces, such as wind, or ocean waves, form complex instruments.

The very definition of the argument from incredulity.

wrong. i have REASONS for my incredulity.  the person learning of american injustice in afghan has no reason.  the only reason the atheist has for believing that the universe is random is that the strong survive and are more likely to pass on their genes.  but as you can see the strong surviving has nothing to do with the cosmos' fine tuning.

no one here is trying to prove a negative. All we are doing is using the null hypothesis.

are you certain that the universe is not designed or aren't you?

[harriet_tubman]

As to the capability of "random forces":

yea, i've seen that photo, it's a far cry from the human brain.

[JillSwift]

clouds are hardly on the same degree of complexity as say the human brain.

So? Probability scales.

point to me a pattern formed at random, complete with interrelated parts, that has a function and achieves an object.  when was the last time you threw a handful of 10 pebbles and they formed a design?

This is just incredulity and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I don't have a claim to prove, you do.

getting back to my monkey example do you think it's just as likely for a monkey to type the sentence: should i compare thee to a summer's day is likely as the monkey typing gibberish?  you can't possible believe this.  i must be misunderstanding you.

Argument from personal incredulity.

are you certain that the universe was not designed?

What does my certainty or uncertainty about anything have to do with the validity of your argument? This is another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

i have evidence.  my evidence is that it takes intelligence to create a design, and that random forces routinely fail to design anything.

Circular reasoning and bald assertion.

the atheist evidence is that natural selection can create a design but the claims of evolution are false which we'll discuss shortly.

More incredulity, and a red herring.

wrong. i have REASONS for my incredulity.  the person learning of american injustice in afghan has no reason.  the only reason the atheist has for believing that the universe is random is that the strong survive and are more likely to pass on their genes.  but as you can see the strong surviving has nothing to do with the cosmos' fine tuning.

Bald assertion. Red herring. Red herring.

are you certain that the universe is not designed or aren't you?

Irrelevant. Yet another attempt to shift burden of proof.

[harriet_tubman]

Jill, you are desperate not to admit you're an atheist.  what is there to be ashamed of?  what would dawkins do?

point to me a pattern formed at random, complete with interrelated parts, that has a function and achieves an object.  when was the last time you threw a handful of 10 pebbles and they formed a design?

This is just incredulity and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I don't have a claim to prove, you do.

this is not incredulity, this is common sense.  when have you ever seen random forces even on a small scale create a system with interrelated parts? since i can't believe it, i assume you can.  so go ahead, don't be ashamed, name me an instance when this has happened.  how can you expect to expose my stupidity if you keep refusing to answer my questions.

getting back to my monkey example do you think it's just as likely for a monkey to type the sentence: should i compare thee to a summer's day is likely as the monkey typing gibberish?  you can't possible believe this.  i must be misunderstanding you.

[/quote]Argument from personal incredulity.

wrong, it's refusal to answer my question and an exposure of the baselessness of your position.

are you certain that the universe was not designed?

What does my certainty or uncertainty about anything have to do with the validity of your argument? This is another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

again, you're desperate to mask your beliefs.  you're ashamed of your position.

i have evidence.  my evidence is that it takes intelligence to create a design, and that random forces routinely fail to design anything.

Circular reasoning and bald assertion.

right, bald assertion, it takes intelligence to create a design, very bald.  how is only the strong survive not a bald assertion if we use your definition of bald assertion?  

the atheist evidence is that natural selection can create a design but the claims of evolution are false which we'll discuss shortly.

More incredulity, and a red herring.

yea, i'm incredulous that natural selection can create a design because i have very good REASONS for my incredulity.  we'll move on them shortly.

are you certain that the universe is not designed or aren't you?

Irrelevant. Yet another attempt to shift burden of proof.

would dawkins refuse to answer such a question.  of course not.

really, jill, you've exposed yourself as not a true believer. you belong in the agnostic camp.  also all you know how to say is: red herring, argument from incredulity, and irrelevant.  try to be a bit more original.

[JillSwift]

Jill, you are desperate not to admit you're an atheist.  what is there to be ashamed of?  what would dawkins do?

Red herring/Ad hominem.

this is not incredulity, this is common sense.  when have you ever seen random forces even on a small scale create a system with interrelated parts? since i can't believe it, i assume you can.  so go ahead, don't be ashamed, name me an instance when this has happened.  how can you expect to expose my stupidity if you keep refusing to answer my questions.

Attempt to shift burden of proof.

wrong, it's refusal to answer my question and an exposure of the baselessness of your position.

Attempt to shift burden of proof.

again, you're desperate to mask your beliefs.  you're ashamed of your position.

Ad hominem.

right, bald assertion, it takes intelligence to create a design, very bald.  how is only the strong survive not a bald assertion if we use your definition of bald assertion?

Bald assertion. Red herring.

yea, i'm incredulous that natural selection can create a design because i have very good REASONS for my incredulity.  we'll move on them shortly.

Changing the subject. Shifting the burden of proof.

would dawkins refuse to answer such a question.  of course not.

Red herring.

really, jill, you've exposed yourself as not a true believer. you belong in the agnostic camp.  also all you know how to say is: red herring, argument from incredulity, and irrelevant.  try to be a bit more original.

Ad hominem.

I'm just going to keep pointing out these fallacies, until and unless you start providing evidence.

[harriet_tubman]

ok, let's move on to a new argument. remember i believe that the divine is manipulating dna so as to create new species, so i believe species change, but the process is guided.  

the problem with natural selection is that every single characteristic is explained as: it helps the creature survive and pass on its genes.  so theoretically we could rank one's traits in terms of how effective they are in helping it survive on a scale of very important and not so important.  it is even not so outrageous to come up with an equation.  

3a + 5b + 6c + 2d + 4e ... 13p + ... 11z + 8aa + 9ab etc etc = x
where a, b, c are character traits
and x is one's ability to survive.  

ok, so once we get beyond maybe the 7th most important character trait exceedingly slim that these traits have anything to do with survival.  consequently natural selection would have no way to shape them because what it is not useful is discarded.  the only thing that matters are those traits extremely critical to survival, all the rest is just decoration which natural selection has no interest in.

now let's talk hard numbers, he honest, imagine 1000 human males and let's say that on average those 1000 produced 2000 kids.  now let's imagine two groups: one group has thick shin hair, almost like a monkey, and the other doesn't, but otherwise it's a very diverse group.  do you really believe that one group will produce a number of kids significantly larger than 2000?  and let's say that we could actually track these individuals and find out the answer, well, how would we know that their reproduction was directly due to that shin hair?

i would think vision, smell, taste, muscle ability, hand-eye coordination, all that is important, but many character traits rank way down on the latter of importance such as: mustache, absence of facial hair, eyebrows, the male fetish for the female breasts, shin hair.

i mean really can you imagine a cave man saying: because of this mustache i gained that extra edge over my peers and was able to pass on my genes?  or, because of my fetish for the female breasts i was able to pass on my genes?    

one of the more ridiculous explanations i've heard is that amazing elaborateness of female hair is due to women would sit with one another, pick the lice out of their hair and thus form better bonds.  really? black women and chinese women get along just fine.

[harriet_tubman]

I'm just going to keep pointing out these fallacies, until and unless you start providing evidence.

it's you who does not provide evidence, not me.  you just say, that's x, that's y and you never provide any reasons.  moreover, you evade my questions.  so really there is no debate between us.