the universe is designed

[Davin]

harriet_tubman, you seem to keep repeating this "fine tuned" argument and keep making analogies to things that humans "fine tune" and design. If you're going persist in this "fine tuning" analogy, then do this: show where the laws of the universe have changed to become the "finely tuned" laws of the universe we have now. If the laws of the universe were finely tuned, then there should be some evidence where the laws of the universe weren't so finely tuned.

[Sophus]

Yes, what would an undesigned universe look like in comparison to a designed one?

[xSilverPhinx]

wrong.  where we see fine-tuning it is rational to infer intelligence and design.  let's say we saw stonehenge.  it would be ridiculous to conclude that we cannot infer that it is designed.

Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2010/04/fine-tuning-arguments.html

where is your evidence that random forces can create a star which fuses hydrogen into helium? my assertions are based on the common sense notion that only intelligence can write code as seen in the dna code.

Random forces? You mean the laws of gravity which pull the atoms that form the star close enough to gain enough heat to undergo nuclear fusion and create helium from hydrogen? There's abosutely no reason to think that there's some intelligent force doing this, nuclear reactions just happen in our universe under certain energy or environmental circumstances, whether in a star, a bomb or a lab (new elements not otherwise present were made by man using nuclear reaction).

Simple step by step: a hydrogen cloud, which happens to be the most abundant atoms in the universe, pull together because of gravity. They gain thermal energy because they contract into a smaller volume. They ignite. They gain enough heat to fuse two hydrogen atoms. Helium is created. And this goes on, when the supply of hydrogen goes out, the star has to maintain nuclear explosions to push the outer mass outward and equalise the gravity which keeps pulling inward, otherwise it would collapse. It contracts a bit more, gains even more thermal energy and fuses helium into carbon. This process continues and it creates iron, can't sustain itself, goes supernova and in that intense heat created other heavier elements which could then self organise into organic compounds ( :typehappy:

If the forces were any other way, they wouldn't create a star - maybe there would be something else - but that doesn't mean that the laws were specifically designed so that the universe could be the way it is, it could just as well mean that the universe is the way it is because of the laws and environmental circumstances (life included).

Also, because of the laws the universe self organises - that's why your Stonehenge analogy is a bad one (just as bad asthe ones people use like the assembling a Boeing Jet 'by chance' or the universe is a car or any other 'machine' that needs everything to work so that it can function). Self organisation needs no external intelligent influence. The universe as we observe it is the result of order out of chaos, not necessarily a goal.

What you have is your perspective, but you can't say that the universe is fine tuned for life, that's belief-induced egocentered thinking on your part.

*edited for clarity

[pinkocommie]

[youtube:3m8p4mo6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0m7jnyv6U[/youtube:3m8p4mo6]

 :yay:  

[Tank]

@ xSilverPhinx

Spot on!

[harriet_tubman]

Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

re the anthro princip.  this does not disprove intelligent design.  let's say that we visited another planet and found a house an abandoned colony on it.  
me: it's designed
you: no, it's not.  just because were here does not mean it's designed

you see, the fact that man exists has nothing to do with whether or not something is designed.  you're almost saying:
because man exists, he is therefore not designed.    

nuclear reactions just happen in our universe under certain energy or environmental circumstances. Simple step by step: a hydrogen cloud, which happens to be the most abundant atoms in the universe, pull together because of gravity. They gain thermal energy because they contract into a smaller volume. They ignite. They gain enough heat to fuse two hydrogen atoms. Helium is created.
Also, because of the laws the universe self organises - that's why your Stonehenge analogy is a bad one (just as bad asthe ones people use like the assembling a Boeing Jet 'by chance' or the universe is a car or any other 'machine' that needs everything to work so that it can function).
 

consider this thought experiment.  let's say you have 10 rooms.  in nine rooms there are numerous particles bouncing around in no order.  in the 10th room however these particles are able to unite and perform these amazingly complex operations.  coincidence?  a rational observer would conclude that these particles were designed.

think about the complex operations that have to be performed in order to create a photograph.  why in a random universe should photographs even be possible?  that's seem quite suspicious to me.  

You're seeing the end result (us, planet Earth and so on) as a predefined goal when it could just as likely be just the result of what would happen in this universe because of the laws being the way it is.

could you say the same thing about the great pyramids?  why aren't the pyramids just the result of natural laws?  it's because we humans have a difficult time understanding just how fine-tuned the parameters of the universe that we cannot appreciate the unlikelyhood of its randomness.  no one would ever conclude that that great wall of china were the result of natural laws.

If the laws were different, we wouldn't be the result, and so wouldn't be here saying that the laws were made that way so that we could come into existence.If the forces were any other way, they wouldn't create a star - maybe there would be something else - but that doesn't mean that the laws were specifically designed so that the universe could be the way it is, it could just as well mean that the universe is the way it is because of the laws and environmental circumstances (life included).  

let's say the bricks in the great wall of china could talk to each other.

me: i think we were designed
you: if the natural laws were different then we wouldn't be here
me: true, but i see no precedent in natural of natural laws forming such a complex system without intelligent guidance.

Self organisation needs no external intelligent influence. The universe as we observe it is the result of order out of chaos, not necessarily a goal.

chaotic forces cannot design or fine-tune anything.  let's take another chaotic force: wind.  have you ever seen wind take leaves and form a word or anything like that?  no, you haven't.  your assertion that order can arise from chaos at random has no evidence behind it. it's pure faith.  it is the atheist who put their faith in a creed that has no evidence, not the theists.  

What you have is your perspective, but you can't say that the universe is fine tuned for life, that's belief-induced egocentered thinking on your part.

since you provide no reasoning to support that statement then it's just mere opinion

*edited for clarity[/quote]

[harriet_tubman]

xislverphinx,
thank you providing an articulate attempt to refute my theories.

Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

re the anthro princip.  this does not disprove intelligent design.  let's say that we visited another planet and found a house an abandoned colony on it.  
me: it's designed
you: no, it's not.  just because were here does not mean it's designed

you see, the fact that man exists has nothing to do with whether or not something is designed.  you're almost saying:
because man exists, he is therefore not designed.    

nuclear reactions just happen in our universe under certain energy or environmental circumstances. Simple step by step: a hydrogen cloud, which happens to be the most abundant atoms in the universe, pull together because of gravity. They gain thermal energy because they contract into a smaller volume. They ignite. They gain enough heat to fuse two hydrogen atoms. Helium is created.
Also, because of the laws the universe self organises - that's why your Stonehenge analogy is a bad one (just as bad asthe ones people use like the assembling a Boeing Jet 'by chance' or the universe is a car or any other 'machine' that needs everything to work so that it can function).
 

consider this thought experiment.  let's say you have 10 rooms.  in nine rooms there are numerous particles bouncing around in no order.  in the 10th room however these particles are able to unite and perform these amazingly complex operations.  coincidence?  a rational observer would conclude that these particles were designed.

think about the complex operations that have to be performed in order to create a photograph.  why in a random universe should photographs even be possible?  that's seem quite suspicious to me.  

You're seeing the end result (us, planet Earth and so on) as a predefined goal when it could just as likely be just the result of what would happen in this universe because of the laws being the way it is.

could you say the same thing about the great pyramids?  why aren't the pyramids just the result of natural laws?  it's because we humans have a difficult time understanding just how fine-tuned the parameters of the universe that we cannot appreciate the unlikelyhood of its randomness.  no one would ever conclude that that great wall of china were the result of natural laws.

If the laws were different, we wouldn't be the result, and so wouldn't be here saying that the laws were made that way so that we could come into existence.If the forces were any other way, they wouldn't create a star - maybe there would be something else - but that doesn't mean that the laws were specifically designed so that the universe could be the way it is, it could just as well mean that the universe is the way it is because of the laws and environmental circumstances (life included).  

let's say the bricks in the great wall of china could talk to each other.

me: i think we were designed
you: if the natural laws were different then we wouldn't be here
me: true, but i see no precedent in natural of natural laws forming such a complex system without intelligent guidance.

Self organisation needs no external intelligent influence. The universe as we observe it is the result of order out of chaos, not necessarily a goal.

chaotic forces cannot design or fine-tune anything.  let's take another chaotic force: wind.  have you ever seen wind take leaves and form a word or anything like that?  no, you haven't.  your assertion that order can arise from chaos at random has no evidence behind it. it's pure faith.  it is the atheist who put their faith in a creed that has no evidence, not the theists.  

What you have is your perspective, but you can't say that the universe is fine tuned for life, that's belief-induced egocentered thinking on your part.

since you provide no reasoning to support that statement then it's just mere opinion

[Davin]

since you provide no reasoning to support that statement then it's just mere opinion

The pot calling the light bulb black.

[karadan]

let's say that we visited another planet and found a house an abandoned colony on it.  

So, the universe is a house now?

[harriet_tubman]

since you provide no reasoning to support that statement then it's just mere opinion

The pot calling the light bulb black.

i challenge you to find one statement i made where i made no effort to support it with reasoning.

[harriet_tubman]

harriet_tubman, you seem to keep repeating this "fine tuned" argument and keep making analogies to things that humans "fine tune" and design. If you're going persist in this "fine tuning" analogy, then do this: show where the laws of the universe have changed to become the "finely tuned" laws of the universe we have now. If the laws of the universe were finely tuned, then there should be some evidence where the laws of the universe weren't so finely tuned.

you want me to look in the historical past and find a moment when gravity was different?  impossible.  let's take frankenstein.  how is frankenstein's monster supposed to obverse the time from before he was created?

[karadan]

since you provide no reasoning to support that statement then it's just mere opinion

The pot calling the light bulb black.

i challenge you to find one statement i made where i made no effort to support it with reasoning.

Prove it.

(See what i did there?)

 

[karadan]

harriet_tubman, you seem to keep repeating this "fine tuned" argument and keep making analogies to things that humans "fine tune" and design. If you're going persist in this "fine tuning" analogy, then do this: show where the laws of the universe have changed to become the "finely tuned" laws of the universe we have now. If the laws of the universe were finely tuned, then there should be some evidence where the laws of the universe weren't so finely tuned.

you want me to look in the historical past and find a moment when gravity was different?  impossible.  let's take frankenstein.  how is frankenstein's monster supposed to obverse the time from before he was created?

Can it be shampoo time now? pleasepleaseplease. :bounce:  

[McQ]

harriet_tubman, you seem to keep repeating this "fine tuned" argument and keep making analogies to things that humans "fine tune" and design. If you're going persist in this "fine tuning" analogy, then do this: show where the laws of the universe have changed to become the "finely tuned" laws of the universe we have now. If the laws of the universe were finely tuned, then there should be some evidence where the laws of the universe weren't so finely tuned.

you want me to look in the historical past and find a moment when gravity was different?  impossible.  let's take frankenstein.  how is frankenstein's monster supposed to obverse the time from before he was created?

Can it be shampoo time now? pleasepleaseplease. :bounce:  :crazy:

[Whitney]

Harriet...if you do not respond to McQ's post you will be banned for a week.  He's a moderator and you can't ignore him.