"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Gerry Rzeppa]

But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think. And if you all think alike on this matter, or differently. Help me out by simply answering (a) or (b) or (c) -- you can elaborate after that. Here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:



On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum, but you did ask for my own words).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?

[Biggus Dickus]

But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think. And if you all think alike on this matter, or differently. Help me out by simply answering...

Sorry Gerry, but I'm drawing the curtains closed on the cell of my zoo cage. Others here can do as they wish.

Again, you want to try and make compelling arguments for a god, or a creator, and get us to somehow find common ground with you, first it was a photoshopped picture of a beach with some writing in the sand, now it's some half-ass amplifier you supposedly built; yet in the end we'll just come full circle and find ourselves in the same place as we are now won't we.

You believe you know and understand a god. To the point that others who don't believe as you do are wrong, and you want to dictate how others should live their lives.

You want to dare tell me what to make of my life? What have you made of yours, who are you to dictate to me whether I have made something of my life, or whether or not it meets your standards.

And that is what all of this is about, you wanting others to accept your way of life over theirs, as if they way I live my life is somehow not as meaningful as yours because you happen to be so misguided as to place your faith in a god.

I don't like you. Or others like you who need others to believe and lives as they do so as to help themselves feel smug and superior.

I'm an atheist, I don't believe in a god(s), but more importantly I don't need or require a belief in a god or religion to give my life reason or purpose.

[xSilverPhinx]

Again, it's a fallacy...and repeating that has gotten tiring. Read up on fallacious thinking and on evolutionary theory and we might have something to talk about.

[Magdalena]

But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think. And if you all think alike on this matter, or differently. Help me out by simply answering(a) or (b) or (c) -- you can elaborate after that. Here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:

Sounds as if we?re some kind of strange creatures to you, and you?re here to observe our behavior. I can see you around your friends, laughing, talking, and drinking. You guys decide to talk about The Happy Atheist Forum and you say, ?They are fascinating creatures, I try to understand them, I try to communicate with them...but?.nothing...I don?t know how their mind works...and I want to know...Ah?.yessssss...my ignorance amuses me.?

[Asmodean]

...Except of course The Asmo. His Grayly-Divine Mind is omniunknowable. So it is. 

[Magdalena]

Asmo, you're lucky to have some type of Magneto's Helmet.
I'm sure it protects you from telepaths, Cerebro, and Gerry.

[Asmodean]

Yes. His Grayly-Divine Tinfoil Hat. It works. 

[Tank]

All I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.

Okay, here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:



On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum, but you did ask for my own words).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?

Bait and switch.

[Davin]

But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think.

I answered you and am awaiting you to address my points and questions.

And if you all think alike on this matter, or differently.

The answer should be obvious to anyone with a moderate level of intelligence, but since you asked and you don't seem to know: we all think differently. Many of us may come to the same conclusions to this silly little thing you've presented here, but that is just because you are using fallacious logic.

Also, any time you want act like an honest adult and come back into our conversation, that would be great.

[Recusant]

There are many things that a deity could do that I would consider as evidence for its existence. Here's one rather famous one: Heal an amputee.

. . . I'm also reminded of a story where some people found the healing of someone like an amputee infuriating, rather than convincing: "[Jesus] said to the man [with the withered hand], Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." Others, I'm sure, found the event inspiring; but I suspect they were leaning that way before the healing. The bottom line, I think, is found at the end of the parable in Luke 16:19-31: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Miracles have a very poor track record when it comes to convincing people.

You asked a question and I gave an honest answer. All the above is a non sequitur.

One can produce hypotheses through the use of analogy, but then these hypotheses need to be tested to produce actual evidence.

Agreed. But sometimes such hypotheses cannot be directly tested, but are indirectly tested by accepting them as postulates, and seeing what kind of logical fruit they bear. And example of this kind of reasoning can be found in one of my posts from another thread which I've pasted here for convenience:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.

I don't consider "logical fruit" to be evidence. Unlike fruit trees, logic does not convert crap into something delicious. Use crap to feed your logic, and all you produce is more crap.

You assume that the processes of the natural world can legitimately be equated with "creation" which humans engage in. This seems ridiculous to me. We long ago learned that the forces of nature are not personal in the way that human beings are. Thunder and lightning are not the manifestations of some petulant god; they're completely explainable as products of the energy of the atmosphere. You've maintained the same sort of thinking which created thunder gods when you try to personalize the natural world as a "creator."

Despite the fact that there are still many things to learn, the workings of nature are not "inexplicable," except to the ignorant. We continue to learn more about those workings, and have yet to discover any indication of a deity. Not in thunder and lightning, not in the formation of stars, and not in the evolution of life on this planet. You want to call all of that your god's doing, fine. Just don't expect anybody who's trying to learn what is actually happening in our universe to take you seriously.

You've dodged the issue here. We're talking about the supernatural, not "most of our lives." The issue is that the supposed evidence for the supernatural is not verifiable, and given that, I question whether it can even be considered evidence. It seems to me that you're basically saying it's a waste of time to consider this question, and it's too hard to even try.

I'm saying that believers approach the supernatural the same way they approach the rest of their lives: they believe, then act on those beliefs. For example, I believe (but am not certain) that writing this post is a worthwhile endeavor; but since I believe it is, I take the time and effort to do it. I also believe (but am not certain) that I'm going to be stuck with the kind of person I've made myself for all eternity; so I try to develop into the kind of person that I wouldn't mind having around forever. The same approach in both cases.

Now let's say I was an atheist. I might believe, for one reason or another, that writing a (somewhat different) post was worthwhile; and so I would take the time and effort to do it. Same as the theist version of me. But then I get stuck: since I believe that my final (and soon to come) end is non-existence, frankly, I feel lost. Perhaps that's because I think more philosophically than others; perhaps it's because I'm a naturally goal-oriented person. Perhaps it's something else. But whatever it is, it depresses me; if that's my ultimate (and not too far off end), what's the point?

So I go back to postulating God (as in the blue, above). And as I do, I notice that once again I've chosen the simpler, more familiar, and more consistent paradigm: the one that works the same for nature and super-nature; both here and hereafter.

Your belief makes you feel more comfortable and helps you avoid depression, but that is not any indication that your belief is correct.

I've come to reject the existence of the supernatural as described by religion and preachers... I don't see any deep mysteries of the sort you're describing (one foot in the universe, the other somewhere else) going on. It all looks like this universe to me. Certainly there are unknowns waiting to be explored, but I've still seen no credible evidence that anything which could be honestly described as "supernatural" exists.

And that brings us back to our stories. Smullyan's planet where some "see humor in everything" while others can't see it in anything. Well's country where one guy sees everything and the rest see nothing. Abbott's flatland where some manage to "reach out" into that third dimension, while the rest are unable to get beyond the two. Those with ears to hear and those without.

None of those stories are evidence of anything except the capacity of human beings to tell stories.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

I must admit I'm surprised that you folks are so reluctant to answer this question. (And no, Davin, you didn't answer. You made comments on (a) and (b) and (c), but didn't clearly and unambiguously choose one.)

I think it would help the conversation a great deal if I knew what you each thought on this issue because I'm obviously going to reply to people "who can't see the parallel at all" differently than I'm going to answer people "who see it but don't find it compelling," etc. (And no, Tank, this is not bait and switch; this whole thread has been about what people can and can't "see": in Smullyan's story it's humor, in Well's story it's visible objects, in Abbott's story it's the third dimension; in this post it's evidence of design. I realize you and I got off on a tangent about belief and facts, but that often happens in threads with multiple participants. The thread is about "seeing".)

So again, c'mon. You folks are always bugging me to answer your questions, show me how it's done so I'll have your good example to follow. It really doesn't seem like that much to ask. Please answer the following question with an initial and unambiguous (a) or (b) or (c) -- you can elaborate, if you like, after that. Here's the question again, with the context:



On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!".

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?

[Davin]

I must admit that I'm not surprised that Gerry is avoiding having an honest adult discussion.

[Recusant]

But c'mon.

. . .

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?

  You didn't include a choice (d) "none of the above, and I'll explain why".

It's not like you haven't been presenting this in various forms since you first started posting here. 

As I've explained to you before, when I look at nature I see it operating in a completely natural way, and it doesn't look designed to me in the same way human artifacts look designed. Can I see the parallel you find so compelling? Yes. Hackenslash posted an image which looked like a shingle beach. All the stones except one in that image are natural, in the sense that they were shaped by natural forces and not by a hominin. They all appear to be natural, but appearances (while sometimes useful) aren't a reasonable basis on which to draw definitive conclusions. If you feel a need to cram me into one of your categories, I think "b," while not a completely accurate reflection of my position, is the closest.

There is evidence, verifiable, tangible, unequivocal evidence which shows that life on this planet evolves. I find that much more compelling than the parallels you keep nattering on about.

Do you think Homo erectus looks designed?  How about Homo habilis? Does Australopithecus afarensis look designed to you? Do you find the similarities and differences in these species compelling at all? If so, what conclusions (if any) would you draw from those similarities and differences?

[xSilverPhinx]

For the umpteenth time, it's a fallacy, Gerry.    If I believed that praying worked then I would pray to the FSM that you would finally understand that.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Can I see the parallel you find so compelling? Yes... If you feel a need to cram me into one of your categories, I think "b," while not a completely accurate reflection of my position, is the closest.

Thank you.

Do you think Homo erectus looks designed? How about Homo habilis? Does Australopithecus afarensis look designed to you?

Yes: they strike me as being designed by believers in evolution, with scant evidence, specifically to support their theories.

Do you find the similarities and differences in these species compelling at all?

No, because I don't find the evidence given for the existence of the species compelling. Too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation.

I know how things get made, because I've been dreaming up things and making them happen for decades. You're asking me to believe in a process I've never seen. I've never seen anything significant arise by chance alone, nor by chance plus any kind of filtering mechanism -- unless, of course, (a) the desired result already existed in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanism was specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired end.

So if you want to convince me that there's a compelling alternative to the concept-design-creation paradigm, you're going to have to show me how that alternative process works. Simulate it for me, on a small scale, so I can understand it, study it, play around with it.

See the difference? The creationist paradigm is all around us, understood by everyone, used by everyone, is easy to simulate, and is exceeding fruitful -- everything from last night's dessert to tomorrow's iPhone has been and will be created using that paradigm. But the paradigm you're advocating is utterly foreign to all of us: nobody has ever used it to produce anything meaningful, and nobody has ever successfully simulated it.