Happy Atheist Forum

no need to write out some 400 word manifesto and dish out my arguments along the way.

let me first issue a disclaimer: i do not believe in the bible or the qur'an.  i believe species evolve but i believe that an immaterial intelligence is manipulating the dna to form more advanced and more complex species.  i believe the divine is not omnipotent.

let's start with the fine tuned universe according to stephen hawking (though it's possible hawking has said some quotes in favor of atheism) "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Paul Davies has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.

the argument exposes atheist hypocrisy: they say why should we believe in something that has no evidence, so then we show them the evidence of fine-tuning, then they respond with their faith in the multiverse for which there is no evidence.  as richard dawkins said, (paraphrasing) how do you not know at the instance of the big bang 15 billion other universes were not created.

I don't see an argument there. Just two quotes and an assertion.

Addressing the assertion: That there is only a band of ranges that would have allowed for life in the universe (at least, life as we know it) suggests in itself nothing other than the universe exists within the constants of those bands.

Even if the chances are supremely tiny that a universe would form within those bands, that does not suggest evidence of agency. If this universe had not formed so life could exist, we would not be here to complain. To suggest otherwise is an argument from personal incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).


___EDIT_______
Edited above with the intent to improve clarity.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the argument exposes atheist hypocrisy

This statement exposes your true purpose for being on this forum.

JillSwift got it pretty spot on, the argument is not cut and dry as you present it.

The whole bulk of the argument is; the parameters are x y z values, if they were different, life would not have evolved, therefore, something must have tuned them to be the way they are, to get the desired result. Surely you can see the shaky nature of the second premise, and the huge non sequitur for the conclusion?

You accuse atheists of being hypocritical, for not believing in your god, but believing in their own theories (multiverse etc), while not having the faintest idea about what atheists believe, because every atheist believes something different, the only thing we share is not believing in a god. It is also laughable you present evidence of fine turning as evidence for god, you can't just co opt shaky evidence as a proof of your god, all the evidence says is "The universe has these parameters", that is the only thing we know for sure, all the rest is speculation (any physicist worth his salt will happily agree to this), we know very, very little about the fundamental workings of the universe.

I should add though, there is also a consensus among physicists that 95% of the universe is missing, so take everything they say with a pinch of salt, this is coming from a physicist by the way.

Edit, also, you may want to acquaint yourself with the anthropic principle, it makes exceedingly good sense.

Quote from: "Tank":pop:

a valid point

Hawking noting that he is amazed by the universe then some other random person claiming that scientists agree with the phrase "fine tuning" (which is not true since that is a creationist term that can't be used without first unscientifically assuming a fine tuner) does not an argument make.

Quote from: "JillSwift"Even if the chances are supremely tiny that a universe would form within those bands, that does not suggest evidence of agency.

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.

QuoteIf this universe had not formed so life could exist, we would not be here to complain.

i don't see how that proves atheism

Quote from: "SSY"The whole bulk of the argument is; the parameters are x y z values, if they were different, life would not have evolved, therefore, something must have tuned them to be the way they are, to get the desired result. Surely you can see the shaky nature of the second premise, and the huge non sequitur for the conclusion?

where there is a design there is a designer, doesn't seem to shaky to me.

QuoteIt is also laughable you present evidence of fine turning as evidence for god,

do you think blind forces can fine tune?

QuoteI should add though, there is also a consensus among physicists that 95% of the universe is missing,

are you saying that the universe is not fine-tuned?  also where did you get that fact that 95% of the cosmos is missing.  i think you're referring to dark energy and dark matter.  the existence of dark energy/matter does not negate the fact that the cosmos is fine-tuned

QuoteEdit, also, you may want to acquaint yourself with the anthropic principle, it makes exceedingly good sense.

you're right, it does and it doesn't prove atheism.

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

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.


As has already been said, life wouldn't exist if conditions didn't allow for life to exist.  Something working is not fine tuning...it just means it works.  And no, being able to understand the difference between fine turning and things just happening to be the way they are is not an argument for atheism, it's just a hole in the fine tuning argument.

Quote from: "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.

The problem with teleology (as I mention in my sig) is: If everything is designed, what does not-designed look like? If complexity can be part of randomness, how does complexity disprove randomness?

If this particular set of circumstances are one in X, then all other circumstances are equally unlikely. If this is an argument about how unlikely this arrangement is, would all other possible circumstances also suggest agency?

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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteIf this universe had not formed so life could exist, we would not be here to complain.

i don't see how that proves atheism

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).  

You may want to become familiar with the concept of the "Null Hypothesis".

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.


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. What is accomplished by our being here, particularly being as we are and not in some other form? What does your designer want? What for?

Sometimes I get frustrated when people argue undemonstrated conclusions as if they're evidence.

Mutation, selection, and adaptation disproves any evidence attributed to fine tuning. That's the long and short of it. All things change, all things are put into the crucible of natural selection, and from that other, better adapted things continue on. That doesn't just apply to biology, but physics.

Quote from: "Will"Mutation, selection, and adaptation disproves any evidence attributed to fine tuning. That's the long and short of it.

let's see some demonstration.  

QuoteAll things change, all things are put into the crucible of natural selection, and from that other, better adapted things continue on. That doesn't just apply to biology, but physics.

let's see some demonstration

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Will"Mutation, selection, and adaptation disproves any evidence attributed to fine tuning. That's the long and short of it.

let's see some demonstration.  

QuoteAll things change, all things are put into the crucible of natural selection, and from that other, better adapted things continue on. That doesn't just apply to biology, but physics.

let's see some demonstration

HAF is not a science classroom.

Quote from: "elliebean"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.

QuoteOn 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.

QuoteWhat does your designer want?

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "elliebean"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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "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?

QuoteThe 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.

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

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

QuoteIf 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.  

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

no they wouldn't.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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

QuoteSnowflakes 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.

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

true, but proves nothing about atheism

QuoteSomething 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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quotenot 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.

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no they wouldn't.

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.  

Quotelet'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.

Quote

QuoteWhat does your designer want?

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

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdonstuff.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fcircular-reasoning1.jpg&hash=8e03a98e29b9549e8fef3a9f11b11b18890aef1f)

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":

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffast1.onesite.com%2Fmy.telegraph.co.uk%2Fuser%2Fdigitalenvironmentalist%2Fblog_photos%2Faf18447b43062a51c83b09016f4ba5cd.jpg&hash=79ced0f7262e4b6e9ac20babcaece5e191f2b9c2)

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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "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?

Quoteyou 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?  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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?

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteYou 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?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.  

QuoteWhich 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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

QuoteThe 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.

Quoteno 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?

Quote from: "Squid"As to the capability of "random forces":

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffast1.onesite.com%2Fmy.telegraph.co.uk%2Fuser%2Fdigitalenvironmentalist%2Fblog_photos%2Faf18447b43062a51c83b09016f4ba5cd.jpg&hash=79ced0f7262e4b6e9ac20babcaece5e191f2b9c2)

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"clouds are hardly on the same degree of complexity as say the human brain.

So? Probability scales.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"are you certain that the universe is not designed or aren't you?

Irrelevant. Yet another attempt to shift burden of proof.

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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?

QuoteThis 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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"are you certain that the universe was not designed?

QuoteWhat 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.

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

QuoteCircular 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?  

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

QuoteMore 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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"are you certain that the universe is not designed or aren't you?

QuoteIrrelevant. 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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"wrong, it's refusal to answer my question and an exposure of the baselessness of your position.

Attempt to shift burden of proof.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"again, you're desperate to mask your beliefs.  you're ashamed of your position.

Ad hominem.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"would dawkins refuse to answer such a question.  of course not.

Red herring.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

I don't have to provide evidence, I am not making any claims.

You came here and made a claim. You can't support the claim, so I've no reason to accept your claim. That's how rational inquiry works.

Now you're changing the subject, but the fallacious argument is the same: Argument from ignorance. "I've never seen it, so it must not be true."

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

I don't have to provide evidence, I am not making any claims.

you are too making claims: you're saying i'm wrong.  that's a claim.  if you make a claim you have to provide evidence.

QuoteArgument from ignorance. "I've never seen it, so it must not be true."

[/quote]

wrong.  the atheists say all the time, why should i believe in something for which there is no evidence?  now the atheists want me to believe in something for which there is only shaky evidence: that blind forces can shape a design.

also, jill, i see that you refer to yourself as a rational inquirer.  come on, have you ever seen anyone call themselves an irrational inquirer?  everyone believes they are rational.  why is it that you somehow have an added edge on the use of the word rational?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"you are too making claims: you're saying i'm wrong.  that's a claim.  if you make a claim you have to provide evidence.

The fallacies are evidence of a bad argument.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"wrong.  the atheists say all the time, why should i believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Fallacy "Tu quoque".

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"now the atheists want me to believe in something for which there is only shaky evidence: that blind forces can shape a design.

Argument from ignorance.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"also, jill, i see that you refer to yourself as a rational inquirer.  come on, have you ever seen anyone call themselves an irrational inquirer?  everyone believes they are rational.  why is it that you somehow have an added edge on the use of the word rational?

Red herring.

I'm not going to bother here, it is obvious our OP is exceedingly obvious and presents no desire to change, I salute those of you who are willing to try.

Quote from: "SSY"I'm not going to bother here, it is obvious our OP is exceedingly obvious and presents no desire to change, I salute those of you who are willing to try.

come on, ssy, don't give up.  i'll listen to reason.  just give me some good reasons to be an atheist and i'll consider it.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Squid"As to the capability of "random forces":

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffast1.onesite.com%2Fmy.telegraph.co.uk%2Fuser%2Fdigitalenvironmentalist%2Fblog_photos%2Faf18447b43062a51c83b09016f4ba5cd.jpg&hash=79ced0f7262e4b6e9ac20babcaece5e191f2b9c2)

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

The fact remains.  I fail to see design in the human brain - I see the current cross-section of an ongoing natural process.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "SSY"I'm not going to bother here, it is obvious our OP is exceedingly obvious and presents no desire to change, I salute those of you who are willing to try.

come on, ssy, don't give up.  i'll listen to reason.  just give me some good reasons to be an atheist and i'll consider it.

Most of us don't care if you are an atheist or not.  You were the one who started a thread making wild baseless claims; either support them or find somewhere else to post.


Waste of my time....

actually, esse j slim, as for you not caring whether or not the universe is an accident, you say that but you really don't mean that.  everyone has feelings on these issues.  every one has to decide whether or not they are going to lie, cheat and steal in order to get ahead.  

if you choose to lie, cheat and steal you do it and are ashamed of it and don't know why you do it, or you do it because you believe that the universe is an accident and it's a dog eat dog world so you're just struggling to survive.

quite a few atheists believe the universe is an accident but choose not to steal because morals are instinctual.  

so esse j slim you have of course decided whether or not you're going to lie, cheat and steal and that decision is based on your world view.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"actually, esse j slim, as for you not caring whether or not the universe is an accident, you say that but you really don't mean that.  everyone has feelings on these issues.  every one has to decide whether or not they are going to lie, cheat and steal in order to get ahead.  

if you choose to lie, cheat and steal you do it and are ashamed of it and don't know why you do it, or you do it because you believe that the universe is an accident and it's a dog eat dog world so you're just struggling to survive.

quite a few atheists believe the universe is an accident but choose not to steal because morals are instinctual.  

so esse j slim you have of course decided whether or not you're going to lie, cheat and steal and that decision is based on your world view.

Red herring. An irrelevancy intended to take attention away from the subject of discussion.
Your assertion and the subject of discussion: "the universe is designed"

Your continued avoidance of the subject is becoming insufferable. If you have evidence of a creator, please present it. If you don't, please admit it. All you have offered so far are unsupported assertions and a string of fallacies.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"....you say that but you really don't mean that.  everyone has feelings on these issues.....

The above is an example of the kinds of things people say that make it seem entirely pointless to for a rational person to continue any kind of discussion with them (ie. if you think you know what everyone else is thinking, why should we bother - nothing we say gets through to you). You seem like a friendly enough person, yet you've demonstrated, consistently and repeatedly, an apparent refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue; you insist on following the script in your own head, rather than hearing what others have to say. I like to think you are capable of altering your approach so that the conversation is free to go in both directions.

If you're interested in actual discourse, why don't you listen to and respond to the words people are saying, instead of the ones you put in their mouths? My advice to you is to detach yourself emotionally from your position, stick to the facts, define your terms, agree to others' definitions of their terms, support your assertions with specific factual evidence, take criticism seriously but not personally, and evaluate each statement on its merit without filtering it through your own assumptions. If anything is to be gained in continuing this (and the other) discussion, that's the only way it's going to happen. Be open to learning something, because so far you have brought nothing new to the table. It's not that we're not listening to or understanding you; it's that we've heard it all countless times before and have nevertheless arrived at what we see as more reasonable conclusions than yours (or have settled, in some cases, on accepting no conclusion at all). You've yet to make anything approaching a slightly compelling case for even questioning our conclusions, let alone accepting yours.

[/off topic]

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"....you say that but you really don't mean that.  everyone has feelings on these issues.....

The above is an example of the kinds of things people say that make it seem entirely pointless to for a rational person to continue any kind of discussion with them (ie. if you think you know what everyone else is thinking, why should we bother - nothing we say gets through to you). You seem like a friendly enough person, yet you've demonstrated, consistently and repeatedly, an apparent refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue; you insist on following the script in your own head, rather than hearing what others have to say. I like to think you are capable of altering your approach so that the conversation is free to go in both directions.

If you're interested in actual discourse, why don't you listen to and respond to the words people are saying, instead of the ones you put in their mouths? My advice to you is to detach yourself emotionally from your position, stick to the facts, define your terms, agree to others' definitions of their terms, support your assertions with specific factual evidence, take criticism seriously but not personally, and evaluate each statement on its merit without filtering it through your own assumptions. If anything is to be gained in continuing this (and the other) discussion, that's the only way it's going to happen. Be open to learning something, because so far you have brought nothing new to the table. It's not that we're not listening to or understanding you; it's that we've heard it all countless times before and have nevertheless arrived at what we see as more reasonable conclusions than yours (or have settled, in some cases, on accepting no conclusion at all). You've yet to make anything approaching a slightly compelling case for even questioning our conclusions, let alone accepting yours.

[/off topic]

Seconded

If you follow the above advice you'll be back on track to being allowed to stick around here like the other respectful theists who inhabit this forum...unfortunately there aren't many of them but they do exist.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"....you say that but you really don't mean that.  everyone has feelings on these issues.....

The above is an example of the kinds of things people say that make it seem entirely pointless to for a rational person to continue any kind of discussion with them (ie. if you think you know what everyone else is thinking, why should we bother - nothing we say gets through to you). You seem like a friendly enough person, yet you've demonstrated, consistently and repeatedly, an apparent refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue; you insist on following the script in your own head, rather than hearing what others have to say. I like to think you are capable of altering your approach so that the conversation is free to go in both directions.

If you're interested in actual discourse, why don't you listen to and respond to the words people are saying, instead of the ones you put in their mouths? My advice to you is to detach yourself emotionally from your position, stick to the facts, define your terms, agree to others' definitions of their terms, support your assertions with specific factual evidence, take criticism seriously but not personally, and evaluate each statement on its merit without filtering it through your own assumptions. If anything is to be gained in continuing this (and the other) discussion, that's the only way it's going to happen. Be open to learning something, because so far you have brought nothing new to the table. It's not that we're not listening to or understanding you; it's that we've heard it all countless times before and have nevertheless arrived at what we see as more reasonable conclusions than yours (or have settled, in some cases, on accepting no conclusion at all). You've yet to make anything approaching a slightly compelling case for even questioning our conclusions, let alone accepting yours.

[/off topic]

ellie, instead of giving me a lecture about how i refuse to debate, why not try to demonstrate how some of my ideas are wrong.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"ellie, instead of giving me a lecture about how i refuse to debate, why not try to demonstrate how some of my ideas are wrong.

You've answered your own question.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"ellie, instead of giving me a lecture about how i refuse to debate, why not try to demonstrate how some of my ideas are wrong.

You've answered your own question.

This is hilarious, gonna book mark it for its genius.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"ellie, instead of giving me a lecture about how i refuse to debate, why not try to demonstrate how some of my ideas are wrong.

You've answered your own question.

Well played, Ellie, but I'm afraid that's destined to go over Ms. Tubman's head.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "SSY"I'm not going to bother here, it is obvious our OP is exceedingly obvious and presents no desire to change, I salute those of you who are willing to try.

come on, ssy, don't give up.  i'll listen to reason.  just give me some good reasons to be an atheist and i'll consider it.

Clearly your decisions so far have not been based on reason. Right now you need sense, then reason. One step at a time huh?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i'll listen to reason.  just give me some good reasons to be an atheist and i'll consider it.

Nobody can give you any reason to be an atheist. To be an atheist requires that you think for yourself, an ability  which you are obviously lacking.

You'll "consider it." No, you won't.

You came here. Remember that? And right out of the gate you started tossing out terms like atheist hypocrisy and making insinuations against people who tried to engage you in debate. Your haughty, sarcastic and self-righteous attitude has not been conducive to constructive discussion, rather it's been you telling us while dismissing out of hand anything anyone else here has to say.

In my estimation this makes you a person to avoid because you, madam, are a predictable and frightful bore.

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

The universe isn't made of 100 rocks.

Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens, they ignite under their own gravity to form stars which then bathe the other balls of rock in radiation. Entire systems will form just because you did something as simple as introduce trilllions of individual rocks to the universe.

You see where i'm going here? Your over-simplification of, well, everything is your failing. You aren't able to entertain these concepts (more than likely because you've been taught not to) so imprint a lovely fluffy simplistic picture over the top so you can grasp reality with a little more ease.

(delurks, blinking in the bright light)

Hi all,

How appropriate that I stumble onto this thread (via twitter) on 25 May - International Towel Day (http://towelday.org/ (http://towelday.org/)), created in honour of author/skeptic/atheist Douglas Adams.

Appropriate because I think he summed up the fine tuning argument quite well (from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams)):

QuoteImagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

Now Mr Adams went on to make a point about the environment, but I think this quote nicely illustrates the mindset of the FineTuners.  Basically - "if things were a tny bit different, then EVERYTHING would be different. So an intelligence must have done it".

They don't seem to realise that almost everything we see is the result of energy and matter acting and interacting according to physical "laws" - including ourselves.  These interactions seem to be neither random nor designed - merely "natural".

If FineTunersn want to argue that these "laws" needed an intelligence to set up, then they have to argue it, not merely assert it.  I have yet to hear a plausible argument for this that doesn't rely on unevidenced assertion or argument from analogy.

Happy Towel Day!

Skevos Mavros

(relurks)

Quote from: "i_am_i"Your haughty, sarcastic and self-righteous attitude has not been conducive to constructive discussion

this is a subjective statement and cannot be proven/disproven

Quote from: "karadan"Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times you will hit a number fallacy.  think about the last time you built something.  it required about 50 steps or so.  each step required you to hit an exact number out of innumerable possibilities.  there has to be a point at which atheists say, yes, that's impossible.  imagine if i poured ink on a paper and it formed a paragraph.  you can't say that it was just an accident.  

just the sun which makes helium out of hydrogen, scientists cannot understand that.  think about how many steps it took just to do that.

Quote from: "skevosmavros"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

i really think adams is way off the mark.  this thought experiment does not answer how a system of a million interrelated parts can achieve a goal.

QuoteBasically - "if things were a tny bit different, then EVERYTHING would be different. So an intelligence must have done it".

i'll answer this later

QuoteThey don't seem to realise that almost everything we see is the result of energy and matter acting and interacting according to physical "laws" - including ourselves.  These interactions seem to be neither random nor designed - merely "natural".

prove that we are just the result of physical laws interacting

QuoteIf FineTunersn want to argue that these "laws" needed an intelligence to set up, then they have to argue it, not merely assert it.  I have yet to hear a plausible argument for this that doesn't rely on unevidenced assertion or argument from analogy.

let's take the great pyramid.  it's the result of fine tuning and intelligence.  random wind or erosion in the desert has produced nothing similar.  the photo posted earlier on in this website does not even come close to the pyramids precision.  the pyramids are almost a near perfect square, those little geometric shapes aren't.

here is my logic
1. random forces such as wind or erosion or waves have never produced a system of interrelated parts that achieve a goal
2. therefore it is reasonable that random forces never will
3. intelligent humans can do this
4. therefore fine-tuning is the result of intelligence.

If the universe is finely-tuned for life, why is such an infinitesimally minute portion of it actually inhabited by living beings?  If indeed this universe is an example of design, then I hardly think it could be called finely-tuned for life given the overwhelming bulk of inhospitable area.  We have yet to find any other lifeforms in the universe beyond this exceedingly thin band of atmosphere, liquid water, and topsoil which circles our little rocky planet.  How could you possibly sum up the entire universe as designed specifically for the existence of life?

Plus--and this could be due to my lack of science education--I have never understood this conclusion that life can only exist within the specific physical properties of the universe.  As we have never experienced another universe with different physical properties, how could we ever possibly say that these specific properties are the only ones which could give rise to life?  How could anyone possibly infer that these properties alone make life possible?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Your haughty, sarcastic and self-righteous attitude has not been conducive to constructive discussion

this is a subjective statement and cannot be proven/disproven

A simple sociological examination of how best to interact with others would take away the subjectivism and support i_am_i's statement, so you are wrong.

Not to mention that it would fall under uncivil which is against the forum rules...you are probably lucky I don't have time to read the thread right now...

Quote from: "Shine"If the universe is finely-tuned for life, why is such an infinitesimally minute portion of it actually inhabited by living beings?  If indeed this universe is an example of design, then I hardly think it could be called finely-tuned for life given the overwhelming bulk of inhospitable area.  We have yet to find any other lifeforms in the universe beyond this exceedingly thin band of atmosphere, liquid water, and topsoil which circles our little rocky planet.  How could you possibly sum up the entire universe as designed specifically for the existence of life?

say you found a house in antartica.  you would still conclude it was designed in spite of the barrenness around it.  

QuotePlus--and this could be due to my lack of science education--I have never understood this conclusion that life can only exist within the specific physical properties of the universe.  As we have never experienced another universe with different physical properties, how could we ever possibly say that these specific properties are the only ones which could give rise to life?  How could anyone possibly infer that these properties alone make life possible?

say, you saw a 100 homes.  each home represents a universe with different constants.  outside of the homes is nothing.  that represents the void.  we would still conclude that the homes were all designed even though they have different constants.

Quote

QuoteSnowflakes 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.

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

true, but proves nothing about atheism

QuoteSomething 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.

The "eukaryote" isn't the simplest life form.  An amoeba is a eukaryote, as are you.  The "simplest" life form may be considered to be the bacterial genus Mycoplasma, which lacks a cell wall and has the smallest known genome of any organism.  Of course, this doesn't take viruses into account, which are generally considered to be non-living infectious particles.

Also, have you considered what else the universe might be "fine-tuned" for, in addition to life?  These parameters seem necessary for lots of other things to exist as they do, not just life.  So does the argument for the "specialness" of life still hold then?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "skevosmavros"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

i really think adams is way off the mark.  this thought experiment does not answer how a system of a million interrelated parts can achieve a goal.

Hahaha, wow. Are you for real or what? You are the puddle thinking there is a unified goal, when there isn't, the puddle just happened to be in a hole.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteThey don't seem to realise that almost everything we see is the result of energy and matter acting and interacting according to physical "laws" - including ourselves.  These interactions seem to be neither random nor designed - merely "natural".

prove that we are just the result of physical laws interacting

You demand so much "proof" but provide none, I'm really beginning to wonder if you're even serious.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteIf FineTunersn want to argue that these "laws" needed an intelligence to set up, then they have to argue it, not merely assert it.  I have yet to hear a plausible argument for this that doesn't rely on unevidenced assertion or argument from analogy.

let's take the great pyramid.  it's the result of fine tuning and intelligence.  random wind or erosion in the desert has produced nothing similar.  the photo posted earlier on in this website does not even come close to the pyramids precision.  the pyramids are almost a near perfect square, those little geometric shapes aren't.

So the universe wasn't designed because there are no natural structures that look like they're designed. Got it.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"here is my logic
1. random forces such as wind or erosion or waves have never produced a system of interrelated parts that achieve a goal
2. therefore it is reasonable that random forces never will
3. intelligent humans can do this
4. therefore fine-tuning is the result of intelligence.

So what you're saying is that because there is no evidence in nature that anything was designed, then nature was designed?
This is some kind of weird "no evidence for my idea proves my idea."

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"here is my logic
1. random forces such as wind or erosion or waves have never produced a system of interrelated parts that achieve a goal
2. therefore it is reasonable that random forces never will
3. intelligent humans can do this
4. therefore fine-tuning is the result of intelligence.

You're claiming that the universe has a goal and has been fine-tuned to achieve that goal.

What is it that makes you convinced that the universe has a goal? There is nothing anywhere outside of religious texts to support that idea. Yours is just the same old religious canard that God created everything.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"here is my logic
1. random forces such as wind or erosion or waves have never produced a system of interrelated parts that achieve a goal
2. therefore it is reasonable that random forces never will
3. intelligent humans can do this
4. therefore fine-tuning is the result of intelligence.

 

"Random" forces? What's so random about them? A cause has an affect.

Hahaha.  Wind never made a house, therefore the universe was designed and by proxy, god exists.

Wowza!  

If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Wind never made a house

I'm sure numerous critters that like to live in wind damaged trees, buildings etc would beg to differ.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Wind never made a house

I'm sure numerous critters that like to live in wind damaged trees, buildings etc would beg to differ.

You're right!     I wonder how tubman's crazy logic is going to explain THAT away?  I'm sure somehow that doesn't count, probably because (insert yet another analogy here which proves nothing and only serves to move the goal posts yet again).  Obviously.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "karadan"Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times you will hit a number fallacy.  think about the last time you built something.  it required about 50 steps or so.  each step required you to hit an exact number out of innumerable possibilities.  there has to be a point at which atheists say, yes, that's impossible.  imagine if I poured ink on a paper and it formed a paragraph.  you can't say that it was just an accident.  

just the sun which makes helium out of hydrogen, scientists cannot understand that.  think about how many steps it took just to do that.

You were trying to demonstrate that a random action (throwing 100 rocks) does not equate to a design. I pointed out that you had over-simplified the point because the universe isn't only made out of 100 rocks. Instead of evaluating my point (which is correct) you diverted the subject to some strange 'fact' about a trillion-sided dice - analogous to nothing. What you have displayed is a closed mind. You are completely shut off to new ideas and have utterly no intention of listening to anything we say. You curiously seem to be rather self-satisfied, which leads me to believe you are a creationist fundie dressed in moderate clothing.

Again you have over-simplified everything. Your ink-on-paper analogy is hugely flawed. This is because the universe has taken 13 billion years to form. You spilling ink on paper is an instant process which leads me (again) to believe that you are a creationist. You seem to be imprinting a creationist attitude upon reality, which is understandably, a very dubious thing to do in this forum. The only way I can see the ink analogy has any relevance is if the ink represents matter and the paper represents a universe-sized piece of empty space. Throw in the laws which govern the universe (gravity, etc) and after 13 billion years you will have planets, stars and galaxies which are entirely representative of your ink. So, if you did spill ink on paper and it formed a coherent paragraph, I'd say, wow! Another beautiful example of a natural process!

Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "karadan"Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times you will hit a number fallacy.  think about the last time you built something.  it required about 50 steps or so.  each step required you to hit an exact number out of innumerable possibilities.  there has to be a point at which atheists say, yes, that's impossible.  imagine if I poured ink on a paper and it formed a paragraph.  you can't say that it was just an accident.  

just the sun which makes helium out of hydrogen, scientists cannot understand that.  think about how many steps it took just to do that.

You were trying to demonstrate that a random action (throwing 100 rocks) does not equate to a design. I pointed out that you had over-simplified the point because the universe isn't only made out of 100 rocks. Instead of evaluating my point (which is correct) you diverted the subject to some strange 'fact' about a trillion-sided dice - analogous to nothing. What you have displayed is a closed mind. You are completely shut off to new ideas and have utterly no intention of listening to anything we say. You curiously seem to be rather self-satisfied, which leads me to believe you are a creationist fundie dressed in moderate clothing.

Again you have over-simplified everything. Your ink-on-paper analogy is hugely flawed. This is because the universe has taken 13 billion years to form. You spilling ink on paper is an instant process which leads me (again) to believe that you are a creationist. You seem to be imprinting a creationist attitude upon reality, which is understandably, a very dubious thing to do in this forum. The only way I can see the ink analogy has any relevance is if the ink represents matter and the paper represents a universe-sized piece of empty space. Throw in the laws which govern the universe (gravity, etc) and after 13 billion years you will have planets, stars and galaxies which are entirely representative of your ink. So, if you did spill ink on paper and it formed a coherent paragraph, I'd say, wow! Another beautiful example of a natural process!

Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

Quite right, you saved me a lot of typing there!

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "karadan"Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times you will hit a number fallacy.  think about the last time you built something.  it required about 50 steps or so.  each step required you to hit an exact number out of innumerable possibilities.  there has to be a point at which atheists say, yes, that's impossible.  imagine if I poured ink on a paper and it formed a paragraph.  you can't say that it was just an accident.  

just the sun which makes helium out of hydrogen, scientists cannot understand that.  think about how many steps it took just to do that.

You were trying to demonstrate that a random action (throwing 100 rocks) does not equate to a design. I pointed out that you had over-simplified the point because the universe isn't only made out of 100 rocks. Instead of evaluating my point (which is correct) you diverted the subject to some strange 'fact' about a trillion-sided dice - analogous to nothing. What you have displayed is a closed mind. You are completely shut off to new ideas and have utterly no intention of listening to anything we say. You curiously seem to be rather self-satisfied, which leads me to believe you are a creationist fundie dressed in moderate clothing.

Again you have over-simplified everything. Your ink-on-paper analogy is hugely flawed. This is because the universe has taken 13 billion years to form. You spilling ink on paper is an instant process which leads me (again) to believe that you are a creationist. You seem to be imprinting a creationist attitude upon reality, which is understandably, a very dubious thing to do in this forum. The only way I can see the ink analogy has any relevance is if the ink represents matter and the paper represents a universe-sized piece of empty space. Throw in the laws which govern the universe (gravity, etc) and after 13 billion years you will have planets, stars and galaxies which are entirely representative of your ink. So, if you did spill ink on paper and it formed a coherent paragraph, I'd say, wow! Another beautiful example of a natural process!

Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

I ditto Tank's ditto.

HT you are becoming more and more transparent. Not only do you seem to be a creationist but you also seem to be reading from the figurative apologist play book. I find your choice of name ironic considering the chains you obviously still wear.

Quote from: "karadan"Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

[youtube:21fr2zxu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JdWlSF195Y[/youtube:21fr2zxu]

Weeee!  

That was awesome Pinko  :hail:

Quote from: "karadan"That was awesome Pinko  :hail:

Oh aye. That did the trick.  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Shine"If the universe is finely-tuned for life, why is such an infinitesimally minute portion of it actually inhabited by living beings?  If indeed this universe is an example of design, then I hardly think it could be called finely-tuned for life given the overwhelming bulk of inhospitable area.  We have yet to find any other lifeforms in the universe beyond this exceedingly thin band of atmosphere, liquid water, and topsoil which circles our little rocky planet.  How could you possibly sum up the entire universe as designed specifically for the existence of life?

say you found a house in antartica.  you would still conclude it was designed in spite of the barrenness around it.

Uh, you just switched your entire argument.  Before you were saying that the universe (in your Antarctic analogy, the "barrenness") is the thing that is finely-tuned for the existence of life (analogized as a house).  But now you are saying that it is not the universe itself nor its specific set of physical properties, but instead that it is some intrinsic quality of life itself which necessitates that there be a designer.  You just shifted the "evidence" of design from the universe to life itself.

Also, analogies comparing man-made structures are a common--and terribly fallacious--tool amongst creationists and ID-proponents.  You are making the false assumption that there is some indubitable parallel between a living organism and a house.  I assume that your analogy is rooted in the equally fallacious sentiment that "complexity cannot arise from simplicity."  Nature continually disproves this statement.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Shine"Plus--and this could be due to my lack of science education--I have never understood this conclusion that life can only exist within the specific physical properties of the universe.  As we have never experienced another universe with different physical properties, how could we ever possibly say that these specific properties are the only ones which could give rise to life?  How could anyone possibly infer that these properties alone make life possible?

say, you saw a 100 homes.  each home represents a universe with different constants.  outside of the homes is nothing.  that represents the void.  we would still conclude that the homes were all designed even though they have different constants.

You have directly contradicted your initial premise that this specific universe with its specific physical properties has been specifically designed so as to allow for the existence of life within specific parameters.  Now you are trying to say the existence of other universes with other physical properties would be evidence of design as well?  This makes no sense; initially, you were arguing for the unique, singular nature of this universe as "proof" of design.  You cannot then simultaneously offer up multiple universes as simultaneous "proof" of design as well.

That's just about at Harriets level of understanding. Good post!

... are you guys still talking about this?

After skimming this thread, and the where do right and wrong come from? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4958) one, I can tell you one thing.

I may not know where "right" comes from... but there's a whole lotta "wrong" in this thread!

(don't get me started)

((Interesting Game - The Only Way To Win Is Not To Play))

Slight revision to Pinko's post:
[youtube:6ms2ad80]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkGSV9WDMA[/youtube:6ms2ad80]

Sorry...  

I love their album 'Here Comes Science'.  I grew up singing TMBG and now my son is singing them too, only the music my son is enjoying is more scientifically accurate!  *nerdgasm*

Quote from: "pinkocommie"*nerdgasm*

 

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Hahaha.  Wind never made a house, therefore the universe was designed and by proxy, god exists.

no, we have no evidence of certain random forces every designing anything.  natural selection is a separate debate.  why believe in something for which there is no evidence?  why believe that blind forces can design when we've never seen this happen in other blind forces such as wind, rain, erosion or earthquakes.

Quote from: "karadan"Your ink-on-paper analogy is hugely flawed. This is because the universe has taken 13 billion years to form. You spilling ink on paper is an instant process which leads me (again) to believe that you are a creationist. You seem to be imprinting a creationist attitude upon reality, which is understandably, a very dubious thing to do in this forum. The only way I can see the ink analogy has any relevance is if the ink represents matter and the paper represents a universe-sized piece of empty space. Throw in the laws which govern the universe (gravity, etc) and after 13 billion years you will have planets, stars and galaxies which are entirely representative of your ink.

quite the contrary.  unfortunately it is very difficult for human beings to understand all the steps required to form a star.  neither of us are super scientists so we are incapable of truly appreciating the awesome complexity and the immense design required to make a functioning star.  of course the atheists are desperate to believe that it is a simple process.  i am asking you this is there any point at which you will change your mind?  if you were to learn of how delicate the sun's balance is would you change your mind?  is there any point at which facts will persuade your otherwise?  what facts implying design do you have to see before you admit you're wrong?  

i do have some facts that can illustrate how remarkably delicate the earth's atmosphere is.  right now we have 300 carbon parts per million in our atmosphere and scientists tell us that if that number should rise maybe even as low as 450 but let's just say that it is as high as 600 then the earth's atmosphere changes remarkably setting off a huge mass extinction.  that would be like a house that is 10km long by 10km high by 10km wide and inside it is a 3m cube representing carbon.  if that 3m cube should double then the whole house becomes unlivable.  that's how delicate our earth is.  now you want me to believe that blind forces shaped that delicate balance?

QuoteScientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

scientists know how to create fusion.  they don't know how the sun does it naturally.  moreover it is an immensely complex process that took scientists years to learn.  and you think it's just an accident that the sun can do this amazingly complex process?

QuoteUh, you just switched your entire argument.  Before you were saying that the universe (in your Antarctic analogy, the "barrenness") is the thing that is finely-tuned for the existence of life (analogized as a house).  But now you are saying that it is not the universe itself nor its specific set of physical properties, but instead that it is some intrinsic quality of life itself which necessitates that there be a designer.  You just shifted the "evidence" of design from the universe to life itself.

what i meant by my analogy was that you implied that since the universe is so amazingly barren and since life occupies such a tiny fraction of it, that therefore the universe is not created for life.  what i illustrated by my analogy was that it doesn't matter how much barrenness surrounds a design, that design is still designed.

QuoteYou are making the false assumption that there is some indubitable parallel between a living organism and a house.

they are remarkably similar.  both require fine-tuning in order to function.

QuoteI assume that your analogy is rooted in the equally fallacious sentiment that "complexity cannot arise from simplicity."  Nature continually disproves this statement.

prove it

QuoteYou have directly contradicted your initial premise that this specific universe with its specific physical properties has been specifically designed so as to allow for the existence of life within specific parameters.  Now you are trying to say the existence of other universes with other physical properties would be evidence of design as well?  This makes no sense; initially, you were arguing for the unique, singular nature of this universe as "proof" of design.  You cannot then simultaneously offer up multiple universes as simultaneous "proof" of design as well.

first the fact that life can exist under certain other finely-tuned parameters can not be proven but let's give atheists the benefit of the doubt and say that life can.  just because life can exist under other narrow ranges, or fine-tuned parameters does not mean that blind forces can fine-tune parameters.

say we saw a house.  i would say it's designed, you would say the wind did it and here's my proof look at those 100 houses over there.  those other 100 houses do not prove that wind or blind forces made them.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"scientists know how to create fusion.  they don't know how the sun does it naturally.  

What unmitigated bullshit!

Quote from: "Prof . M. Carollo"CLASS 7 Thermonuclear fusion in stars.

Thermonuclear fusion in stars is activated by gravitational contraction. Because the fusion of
nuclei is strongly hindered by Coulomb repulsion, the first nuclear fuel to ignite is composed of
light nuclei with low charge. The energy released by this fuel brings a temporary halt to the
contraction of the star. But contraction resumes when this particular fuel is exhausted. The
internal temperature then rises until the next available fuel, consisting of heavier nuclei, is
ignited. In this way a star can proceed through a sequence of nuclear burning stages which
interrupt and delay gravitational contraction. These thermonuclear hang-ups not only prolong the
life of a star, they also play a constructive role in the synthesis of heavier atomic nuclei.
(Continued via the link below)

From http://www.exp-astro.phys.ethz.ch/Astro ... class7.pdf (http://www.exp-astro.phys.ethz.ch/Astrophysics1/lectures/class7.pdf)

harriet_tubman you are a clueless uneducated ignorant person. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? What level of education have you achieved and in what subjects? Nothing relevant to any thing you are pontificating about here that's for sure. From the very first line of your second post "if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.", when you demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of probability theory you have vomited nothing but unmitigated twaddle that I would not expect from a half decent 14 year old physics student in the UK.  

Go and get an education, because you seriously need one!

Tank, I'd like you to be my new BFF please.

I think HT might be under the mistaken inpression that since he/she desn't know an answer or understand that no one does. It's ok to be ignorant we are all ignorant of many things but it's the hight of arrogance to think that because you don't that know no one else does either.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Tank, I'd like you to be my new BFF please.

Why thank you I would be honoured  

Quote from: "Tanker"I think HT might be under the mistaken inpression that since he/she desn't know an answer or understand that no one does. It's ok to be ignorant we are all ignorant of many things but it's the hight of arrogance to think that because you don't that know no one else does either.

I am ignorant of far more than I know, I'd go as far as to say that nowadays we all are simply because the body of knowledge is now too great for any one mind to hold and assimilate. I think HT is worse than ignorant (that can be cured with education) he/she is 'wilfully ignorant' in that there is nothing else to know that is worth knowing he/she knows it all already.

I seriously can't tell anymore if harriet_tubman is for real or not. I'm under the impression that because these ideas are so ridiculous and easy to look up that the person is either a troll, a joke or really a closed minded person that refuses to learn about how thins work.

All the arguments are old arguments that have been refuted and are easily refuted. The logic is clearly fallacious while the person holds stance of confidence. So if the person is a troll trying to get a response of anger and/or frustration, I say don't give it to them. If the person is a joke, just keep laughing at it. However if the person is honestly this confident while using clear and easily recognized fallacies, there likely is no hope to reach them through a rational discussion.

My conclusion, unless your having fun or need the practice to develop your fallacy detection and identification skills, I say /ignore. I probably won't ignore because I usually have fun.

Quote from: "Davin"I seriously can't tell anymore if harriet_tubman is for real or not. I'm under the impression that because these ideas are so ridiculous and easy to look up that the person is either a troll, a joke or really a closed minded person that refuses to learn about how thins work.

All the arguments are old arguments that have been refuted and are easily refuted. The logic is clearly fallacious while the person holds stance of confidence. So if the person is a troll trying to get a response of anger and/or frustration, I say don't give it to them. If the person is a joke, just keep laughing at it. However if the person is honestly this confident while using clear and easily recognized fallacies, there likely is no hope to reach them through a rational discussion.

My conclusion, unless your having fun or need the practice to develop your fallacy detection and identification skills, I say /ignore. I probably won't ignore because I usually have fun.

As you say, for whatever reason, attempting to engage with HT is an exercise in futility, but if you're having fun then WTF! I tend to just show up her/his ignorance so anybody reading the posts does not get sucked in by the drivel HT is producing.

I'm having a blast remembering all my fallacies through these 'arguments'.  Learning how to debate better too, never was good at it.......

Quote from: "KDbeads"I'm having a blast remembering all my fallacies through these 'arguments'.  Learning how to debate better too, never was good at it.......

Debating is like riding a bike, all the instructions in the world don't match an hours practice! You can be told how to debate but practice makes perfect!

Harriet answer one question first, then read on. Are you serious about your assertions or just pulling our collective legs? Really, please answer honestly, because it's difficult for those of us with science backgrounds and education to take anything you assert seriously.

Now, if you are serious, then you have to acknowledge something. That is the obvious fact that you have zero training in any science. Is that correct?

Moving on, if that is true...then you can only make your assertions based on what someone in a christian church has told you to say, or based on what you've read in christian-based literature. Correct?

Answer these for me please, because it is absolutely useless to try and have any type of discussion until your background, motives, and education are sorted out.

Quote from: "Davin"All the arguments are old arguments that have been refuted and are easily refuted.

prove it

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"All the arguments are old arguments that have been refuted and are easily refuted.

prove it

He doesn't have to, you came here, you spouted rubbish and Davin, nor anybody is here, is a free tutor to fill in your ignorance of the real world.

Quote from: "McQ"Are you serious about your assertions or just pulling our collective legs?

yes

QuoteMoving on, if that is true...then you can only make your assertions based on what someone in a christian church has told you to say, or based on what you've read in christian-based literature. Correct?

i'm not a christian and don't believe the bible.

QuoteAnswer these for me please, because it is absolutely useless to try and have any type of discussion until your background, motives, and education are sorted out.

only the truth matters, it doesn't matter how the truth is said or who says it.

my background is i'm american.  my motives are to learn.  my education is a bachelor of arts.

now, please criticize my ideas.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "McQ"Are you serious about your assertions or just pulling our collective legs?

yes

Yes to what part of the question? Yes I am serious or Yes I'm pulling your leg? You can't even read and answer a simple question can you? How do you possibly expect to understand anything even vaguely complicated?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"now, please criticize my ideas.

Your ideas have already been criticized, your fallacies have been pointed out and you refused to correct them. Which goes completely against this statement that you made:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"my motives are to learn.

If your motives are truly to learn, then you would have taken advice of those here and fixed the parts of your argument that rely on fallacies. Because you simply refuse to correct your fallacies, I highly doubt that your motives are to learn.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "McQ"Are you serious about your assertions or just pulling our collective legs?

yes

Yes to what part of the question? Yes I am serious or Yes I'm pulling your leg? You can't even read and answer a simple question can you? How do you possibly expect to understand anything even vaguely complicated?

Maybe it's yes to both: "Yes I'm seriously deluded and completely ignorant of what I'm saying despite me saying it with total confidence, but I'm also trying to pull your leg."

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Hahaha.  Wind never made a house, therefore the universe was designed and by proxy, god exists.

no, we have no evidence of certain random forces every designing anything.  natural selection is a separate debate.  why believe in something for which there is no evidence?  why believe that blind forces can design when we've never seen this happen in other blind forces such as wind, rain, erosion or earthquakes.

Wait, natural selection?  What are you talking about?  MAKE SENSE!!!  

I don't believe blind forces can design anything.  My position is that there is no evidence of the universe being intelligently designed, not that blind forces designed the universe.  Doesn't it bother you that in order to even have this argument, you have to constantly assert what people here believe, so that it's possible for you to argue against them?  Shouldn't that send up a big red flag of sorts?  It's almost like watching someone have an argument with themselves.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"my background is i'm american.  my motives are to learn.  my education is a bachelor of arts.

now, please criticize my ideas.

Serious question. Do you have a physical disability that makes it difficult to use the shift key on your keyboard?

in answer to the question whether or not i'm serious, yes i'm serious.

QuoteWait, natural selection?  What are you talking about?  MAKE SENSE!!!  

atheists believe that natural selection designed animals.

QuoteMy position is that there is no evidence of the universe being intelligently designed, not that blind forces designed the universe.

the universe is either intended or unintended.  it is either the result of blind forces or intelligent forces.  if you can think of a third way let me know.  God is that intelligence responsible for the universe's creation.  all theists believe that.  an atheists believes the universe was not created by an intelligence.  if you want to call yourself an atheist, pinkocommie then you have to at least subscribe to the believe that the universe is not the result of an intelligent intention.  the only other option is that the universe is the result of random/blind forces.  if you can think of a third possibility let me know.

QuoteDoesn't it bother you that in order to even have this argument, you have to constantly assert what people here believe, so that it's possible for you to argue against them?  

if i'm wrong in what i believe you believe then please correct me and i'll be happy to debate with you what your thesis.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"atheists believe that natural selection designed animals.

Atheists don't believe there is sufficient robust evidence to turn the God Hypothesis into the Theory of God. Atheism and the scientific method are affects of rational thought, while theism is the result of irrational thought. Natural selection is a natural process observed and observable in reality it leads to the process known as evolution which creates the variety in the living organisms we see around us today, design has nothing to do with evolution.

Tank, what's your definition for the word design

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"atheists believe that natural selection designed animals.

Maybe some stupid atheists believe that, but that is not what natural selection describes.

"Natural selection is the process by which certain heritable traitsâ€"those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce â€"become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Lots of Christians subscribe to the ideas contained in the theory of evolution, too. You, I take it, do not. So that makes you a creationist, doesn't it?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"Tank, what's your definition for the word design

Fuck off with the semantic augments, the last refuge of the terminally failed. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing worth listening to or wasting time on.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"atheists believe that natural selection designed animals.

I'll go ahead and add that to the list of things harriet_tubman asserts that atheists believe.  Why bring it up?  Does that have anything to do with my previous statement 'Wind never made a house, therefore the universe was designed and by proxy, god exists.'?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the universe is either intended or unintended.  it is either the result of blind forces or intelligent forces.  if you can think of a third way let me know.  God is that intelligence responsible for the universe's creation.  all theists believe that.  an atheists believes the universe was not created by an intelligence.  if you want to call yourself an atheist, pinkocommie then you have to at least subscribe to the believe that the universe is not the result of an intelligent intention.  the only other option is that the universe is the result of random/blind forces.  if you can think of a third possibility let me know.

I don't think the universe was created by an intelligence.

I don't think the universe was designed by blind forces.

I find it interesting that you yourself changed your wording when describing (yet again) what an atheist believes to me about the universe from 'blind forces can design'  specifically citing 'wind, rain, erosion or earthquakes' to 'the universe is the result of random/blind forces.'

Do you realize that my objection was to this:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no, we have no evidence of certain random forces every designing anything. natural selection is a separate debate. why believe in something for which there is no evidence? why believe that blind forces can design when we've never seen this happen in other blind forces such as wind, rain, erosion or earthquakes.

and not to your revision:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"if you want to call yourself an atheist, pinkocommie then you have to at least subscribe to the believe that the universe is not the result of an intelligent intention.  the only other option is that the universe is the result of random/blind forces.

and why acting as if both arguments are the same is disingenuous?  Do you understand why it's impossible to have a debate with someone who is disingenuous because ultimately the debate is doomed to one side pointing out that the person is being disingenuous while the other person tries to argue that they're not disingenuous by...well, being disingenuous?

1. "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency."

2. harriet_tubman believes that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.

3. harriet_tubman is a creationist.

Ergo, we are arguing (bashing heads) with a creationist.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't think the universe was created by an intelligence.

I don't think the universe was designed by blind forces.

pinkocommie, how am i supposed to debate with you if you won't state a thesis?  here's how our debates work.

me: you're wrong because you believe x
you: i don't believe x
me: what do you believe
you: i don't know.  

how do you believe the universe got here?

Quote from: "i_am_i""Natural selection is the process by which certain heritable traitsâ€"those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce â€"become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Lots of Christians subscribe to the ideas contained in the theory of evolution, too. You, I take it, do not. So that makes you a creationist, doesn't it?

as for creationists, atheists define those theists who deny evolution as creationists and those who believe evolution as IDers.  I believe in evolution i just believe that it is guided.

I am I, how do you define the noun for the word design?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"how do you believe the universe got here?

I'll offer my thoughts on this, at the moment nobody knows for sure, not you, not I, not anybody. There is a lot of speculation, some structured and based on mathematical principles and the scientific method, some on spurious wish fulfilment and mythological superstition. Now as the former process has continually improved our understanding of how the universe actually works while the latter has single-handedly been the main cause of preventing our understanding of how the universe actually works it doesn't take much intelligence to understand where the smart money is.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"pinkocommie, how am i supposed to debate with you if you won't state a thesis?  here's how our debates work.

me: you're wrong because you believe x
you: i don't believe x
me: what do you believe
you: i don't know.

We can point out the flaws in your argument without the requirement of replacing your argument with something else. I'll use an metaphorical example: If you go around saying how awesome your house is to everyone, and someone points out that the foundation is total crap, it's not their responsibility to replace your foundation. It's yours.

Here's an example of someone just speculating what you believe:

You're either a Christian or a Muslim that believes that the light from stars that are billions of light years away, somehow got to the planet in less than 10,000 years. To put it another way, you think that somehow the light traveling at the speed of light from a star that would take 1,000,000,000 years to reach us, got to this planet in less than 10,000 years.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "i_am_i""Natural selection is the process by which certain heritable traitsâ€"those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce â€"become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Lots of Christians subscribe to the ideas contained in the theory of evolution, too. You, I take it, do not. So that makes you a creationist, doesn't it?

as for creationists, atheists define those theists who deny evolution as creationists and those who believe evolution as IDers.  I believe in evolution i just believe that it is guided.

I am I, how do you define the noun for the word design?

So you are a Teist, a Theistic Evolutionist. Another cop-out answer. Look, you can believe whatever you like but don't expect to be able to support it with any rational, scientifically rigorous evidence. You're just on a wish fulfilment trip, you are in practice, delusional.

Still trying to get somebody to bite on your semantic argument strategy?

Oh and this is starting to smell of 'bait and switch' another disingenuous debating technique favoured by the terminally failed.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't think the universe was created by an intelligence.

I don't think the universe was designed by blind forces.

pinkocommie, how am i supposed to debate with you if you won't state a thesis?  here's how our debates work.

me: you're wrong because you believe x
you: i don't believe x
me: what do you believe
you: i don't know.  

how do you believe the universe got here?

I don't need to fake knowing how the universe came to be to argue against an illogical assertion regarding how the universe came to be.  I'm sorry that your position is so difficult for you to debate that you feel you need to divert attention away from what you're asserting, but I'd say that might be an indication that you might be putting your faith in a poor argument.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"I am I, how do you define the noun for the word design?

Call me J.

Do you mean the word designer? The word means one who designs. A designer designs.

I see that you are somehow convinced that this universe and everything in it was designed and so there must have been a designer of this universe and everything in it. Am I correct about this?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"how do you believe the universe got here?

 There is a lot of speculation, some structured and based on mathematical principles and the scientific method, some on spurious wish fulfilment and mythological superstition. Now as the former process has continually improved our understanding of how the universe actually works while the latter has single-handedly been the main cause of preventing our understanding of how the universe actually works it doesn't take much intelligence to understand where the smart money is.

how about backing up your statement with evidence, tank.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"how do you believe the universe got here?

 There is a lot of speculation, some structured and based on mathematical principles and the scientific method, some on spurious wish fulfilment and mythological superstition. Now as the former process has continually improved our understanding of how the universe actually works while the latter has single-handedly been the main cause of preventing our understanding of how the universe actually works it doesn't take much intelligence to understand where the smart money is.

how about backing up your statement with evidence, tank.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
http://scienceray.com/astronomy/how-the-universe-started/
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/origins_of_the_universe
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/universe.htm


This isent secret information.

Quote from: "Davin"We can point out the flaws in your argument without the requirement of replacing your argument with something else.

wrong.  as sartre said even a non-choice is still a choice.  if you visit stonehenge there are three categories of answers as to how it got there.

1. humans built it
2. there is not evidence to come to a conclusion
3. some other intelligent agency such as aliens built it
4. it is the result of some random, natural, blind force

regarding the origin of the universe.  if you're an atheist by default you believe its origin is random or unintended.  if you're an agnostic then you believe there is not enough evidence to make an intelligent decision.

QuoteYou're either a Christian or a Muslim that believes that the light from stars that are billions of light years away, somehow got to the planet in less than 10,000 years. To put it another way, you think that somehow the light traveling at the speed of light from a star that would take 1,000,000,000 years to reach us, got to this planet in less than 10,000 years.

don't understand your point

Quote from: "Tank"You're just on a wish fulfilment trip, you are in practice, delusional.

Tank, with all due respect, i'd like to see some evidence to support this.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Tank"You're just on a wish fulfilment trip, you are in practice, delusional.

Tank, with all due respect, i'd like to see some evidence to support this.

Absolutely! I refer you back to every post you have made so far.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"We can point out the flaws in your argument without the requirement of replacing your argument with something else.

wrong.  as sartre said even a non-choice is still a choice.  if you visit stonehenge there are three categories of answers as to how it got there.

1. humans built it
2. there is not evidence to come to a conclusion
3. some other intelligent agency such as aliens built it
4. it is the result of some random, natural, blind force

regarding the origin of the universe.  if you're an atheist by default you believe its origin is random or unintended.  if you're an agnostic then you believe there is not enough evidence to make an intelligent decision.

Wrong on both a definition and responsibility of evidence. An atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in a god. So all it requires to be an atheist is to just not believe in any gods. There is no position an atheist must take to be an atheist, other than not believing in a god. Even if you don't accept this definition of "atheist" it doesn't matter because most atheists are not the atheists that you define.

Once again: just because I point out that your house is built on a faulty foundation, doesn't mean that I'm required to fix it for you. If I told you that I was god because one time I brought a dead giraffe back to life using my mind, would you have to offer an alternate explanation to counter my conclusion or am I required to provide the evidence for my assertion?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteYou're either a Christian or a Muslim that believes that the light from stars that are billions of light years away, somehow got to the planet in less than 10,000 years. To put it another way, you think that somehow the light traveling at the speed of light from a star that would take 1,000,000,000 years to reach us, got to this planet in less than 10,000 years.

don't understand your point

My point is that you hold the position that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"how do you believe the universe got here?

 There is a lot of speculation, some structured and based on mathematical principles and the scientific method, some on spurious wish fulfilment and mythological superstition. Now as the former process has continually improved our understanding of how the universe actually works while the latter has single-handedly been the main cause of preventing our understanding of how the universe actually works it doesn't take much intelligence to understand where the smart money is.

how about backing up your statement with evidence, tank.

The collective works of Pythagoras, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Hawkins, Einstein, Mendel, Rutherford, Fermi, Curie, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Davy, Piestley, Pasteur, Fleming, Nobel, etc, etc

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... n_SI_units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_whose_names_are_used_as_non_SI_units)

See also http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php (http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php)

QuoteOn February 18, 2004, 62 leading scientists--Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents--signed a scientist's statement on scientific integrity in policymaking. Over the next four years, 15,000 U.S. scientists voiced their concern about the misuse of science by the George W. Bush administration.

Now show me how theology has improved humanities understanding of reality? Did a theologian at any time get involved with the design of your PC? No, of course not.

So we now have the following examples of your ignorance.

1) Probability Theory.
2) Stella fusion.
3) The efficacy of the scientific method to effectively describe reality.

Now on the basis of 'Once is luck, twice is coincidence and three times is a trend.', you are patently ignorant of those subjects which you preach and pontificate about.

Get real HT, you came here with nothing and you still have nothing because the world view that you cling to is intellectually bankrupt.

Quote from: "Tanker"http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
http://scienceray.com/astronomy/how-the-universe-started/
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/origins_of_the_universe
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/universe.htm


This isent secret information.

Quote from: "Whitney"

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg163.imageshack.us%2Fimg163%2F7355%2Fconsoling2.gif&hash=3a8ffba6dd009744a227ffe4896f21813251a0c2) this is more fun than day time TV, but only just!

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the universe is either intended or unintended.  it is either the result of blind forces or intelligent forces.  if you can think of a third way let me know.

The third way is, in fact, the true way, it is we don't know. See how easy that is, 'We don't know.'! It's not the end of the world to admit it and I, as a nominally rational individual, find it is the only stand point that I personally feel prepared to support. We don't know why the universe exists or how it came into being, that is simply a gap in our knowledge and only an fool would shoe horn a mystical answer into that gap in their understanding.  

HT you realise that a few hundred years ago, or even today in some primitive parts of the world, you would believe whole heartedly that demons and curses created illness, disease and death. As you live in a 1st world country I assume you make use of the modern medical facilities and go to a trained and professional doctor when you are ill? Or do you prey and hope for the best or maybe visit a witch doctor? You see how rationality and an enquiring mind are essential in delivering a better understanding of how the world works? A mind drowned in dogma, superstition, wish fulfilment and ignorance is no use to man nor beast.

HT there is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance, it's the first step towards real learning, you don't have the answers to why the universe is here or the process by which it was started because nobody does, do they?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the universe is either intended or unintended.  it is either the result of blind forces or intelligent forces.  if you can think of a third way let me know.

The third way is, in fact, the true way, it is we don't know. See how easy that is, 'We don't know.'! It's not the end of the world to admit it and I, as a nominally rational individual, find it is the only stand point that I personally feel prepared to support. We don't know why the universe exists or how it came into being, that is simply a gap in our knowledge and only an fool would shoe horn a mystical answer into that gap in their understanding.  

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.

QuoteHT you realise that a few hundred years ago, or even today in some primitive parts of the world, you would believe whole heartedly that demons and curses created illness, disease and death. As you live in a 1st world country I assume you make use of the modern medical facilities and go to a trained and professional doctor when you are ill? Or do you prey and hope for the best or maybe visit a witch doctor?

i never said i believed in demons or superstition.  i said i believe the cosmos is designed since as stephen hawking elucidated it is fine-tuned.

QuoteYou see how rationality and an enquiring mind are essential in delivering a better understanding of how the world works? A mind drowned in dogma, superstition, wish fulfilment and ignorance is no use to man nor beast.

i love the way atheists believe they are rational.  you don't think theists believe they are rational as well?  is it rational conclude that stonehenge is the result of random forces in spite of its fine-tuning?  no, it's not.

QuoteHT there is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance, it's the first step towards real learning, you don't have the answers to why the universe is here or the process by which it was started because nobody does, do they?

tank, as an atheist you believe that you KNOW there is no creator.  if you admit ignorance then you're an agnostic.  so then you are just as guilty of claiming knowledge as i am.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"tank, as an atheist you believe that you KNOW there is no creator.  if you admit ignorance then you're an agnostic.  so then you are just as guilty of claiming knowledge as i am.

Don't tell me what I think you ignoramus.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i love the way atheists believe they are rational.  you don't think theists believe they are rational as well?

Difference being that only one of them is correct.  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the universe is either intended or unintended.  it is either the result of blind forces or intelligent forces.  if you can think of a third way let me know.

The third way is, in fact, the true way, it is we don't know. See how easy that is, 'We don't know.'! It's not the end of the world to admit it and I, as a nominally rational individual, find it is the only stand point that I personally feel prepared to support. We don't know why the universe exists or how it came into being, that is simply a gap in our knowledge and only an fool would shoe horn a mystical answer into that gap in their understanding.  

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.

Where you see fine tuning is your problem not mine.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "CJ"HT you realise that a few hundred years ago, or even today in some primitive parts of the world, you would believe whole heartedly that demons and curses created illness, disease and death. As you live in a 1st world country I assume you make use of the modern medical facilities and go to a trained and professional doctor when you are ill? Or do you prey and hope for the best or maybe visit a witch doctor?

i never said i believed in demons or superstition.

Belief in God IS superstitious.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i said i believe the cosmos is designed since as stephen hawking elucidated it is fine-tuned.

He never said it was fine tuned he said 'seemed' to be.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "CJ"You see how rationality and an enquiring mind are essential in delivering a better understanding of how the world works? A mind drowned in dogma, superstition, wish fulfilment and ignorance is no use to man nor beast.

i love the way atheists believe they are rational.

I never said atheists were rational I said 'I am nominally rational' I didn't speak for any other person atheist or theist. Please read what is written before attempting a reply in future.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"you don't think theists believe they are rational as well?  

Theists can be rational until they are shown why they are wrong, they then can be considered irrational and delusional if they stick with there superstition.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"is it rational conclude that stonehenge is the result of random forces in spite of its fine-tuning?  no, it's not.

Stonehenge is a construction. The universe is not. With a bit of care and attention the current state of the Universe can be deduced by the simple interaction of certain forces and matter. No supernatural intervention required after the start of spacetime (a scientific concept, look it up). And as has been pointed out nobody knows in detail how and why Spacetime came about.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "CJ"HT there is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance, it's the first step towards real learning, you don't have the answers to why the universe is here or the process by which it was started because nobody does, do they?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"tank, as an atheist you believe that you KNOW there is no creator.  if you admit ignorance then you're an agnostic.  so then you are just as guilty of claiming knowledge as i am.

I have not seen a rational, reasonable and scientifically rigorous argument that God exists, so I don't KNOW God does not exist any more than you KNOW he does. Agnosticism gives equality of chance to the existance or non-existance of a deity. You claim knowledge of the supernatural!

So HT, show me you rational, reasonable and scientifically rigorous argument that God exists and I'll consider it.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the universe is either intended or unintended.  it is either the result of blind forces or intelligent forces.  if you can think of a third way let me know.

The third way is, in fact, the true way, it is we don't know. See how easy that is, 'We don't know.'! It's not the end of the world to admit it and I, as a nominally rational individual, find it is the only stand point that I personally feel prepared to support. We don't know why the universe exists or how it came into being, that is simply a gap in our knowledge and only an fool would shoe horn a mystical answer into that gap in their understanding.  

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.

The universe is not stonehenge; if you want to compare the universe to something compare it to a pile of rocks that has a faint smiley face pattern that also looks like a duck to others.

ps.  stop starting almost every sentence with "wrong" if you aren't going to back up that statement....it makes you look even more childish.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"tank, as an atheist you believe that you KNOW there is no creator.  if you admit ignorance then you're an agnostic.  so then you are just as guilty of claiming knowledge as i am.

Strike 2....stop telling people what they believe.

It's not our problem if you don't know what atheist theist gnostic and agnostic mean...go look them up and quick trying to force your uneducated definitions on others.

Quote from: "McQ"Are you serious about your assertions or just pulling our collective legs?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"yes

I'm not here to play games with you. Answer questions directly, please.

QuoteMoving on, if that is true...then you can only make your assertions based on what someone in a christian church has told you to say, or based on what you've read in christian-based literature. Correct?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i'm not a christian and don't believe the bible.

Where do you get your knowledge of the assertions you are making? Be specific and elaborate fully, please.

QuoteAnswer these for me please, because it is absolutely useless to try and have any type of discussion until your background, motives, and education are sorted out.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"only the truth matters, it doesn't matter how the truth is said or who says it.

You are wrong. Only evidence matters. And truth is something you seem to define differently than I do. Where is the evidence to back up your assertions? Be specific and elaborate fully on them, once again.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"my background is i'm american.  my motives are to learn.  my education is a bachelor of arts.

What is your level of science education? Do you understand what a bad analogy is?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"now, please criticize my ideas.

I will criticize the one of the things you seem not to understand yet keep using an your argument. You seem to think your analogies are representative of reality. They are not. Your analogies to describe your ideas are simply flawed. You claim you are here to learn, yet you have not demonstrated in any one of your posts a desire to learn. You have simply repeated assertions that are patently false, over and over. You have not even tried to understand why you are wrong.

I will not waste time in debate with anyone who does this. In my opinion, you are here to play games and see what kind of trouble you can make. If I don't see otherwise from you soon, your time here will be very brief. Trolling is not something I have patience with, and you are pushing it.

QuoteI will not waste time in debate with anyone who does this. In my opinion, you are here to play games and see what kind of trouble you can make. If I don't see otherwise from you soon, your time here will be very brief. Trolling is not something I have patience with, and you are pushing it.

McQ, how do you expect to conduct an honest search for the truth if you get so angry when people disagree with you.  seriously, why should you get angry if someone disagrees with you.  if i'm stupid then why should that make you angry?  

QuoteWhere do you get your knowledge of the assertions you are making? Be specific and elaborate fully, please.
 

it's called common sense.  where there is a design there is a designer.  random forces don't design.  common sense.  now, how something comes from nothing, i don't know and neither do you, common sense doesn't teach us that.

QuoteWhere is the evidence to back up your assertions? Be specific and elaborate fully on them, once again.

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.

QuoteWhat is your level of science education?

pretty high. what's yours?

QuoteDo you understand what a bad analogy is?

yes, do you?

QuoteYou seem to think your analogies are representative of reality. They are not. Your analogies to describe your ideas are simply flawed.

demonstrate why

QuoteYou have simply repeated assertions that are patently false, over and over.

evidence please

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"if you admit ignorance then you're an agnostic.  so then you are just as guilty of claiming knowledge as i am.

Not really. An agnostic thinks the knowledge of the divine is unobtainable. Agnostics can be theists or atheists depending on their bias. Those who don't know whether or not they believe are, per definition, atheists, since surety in having a belief is a requirement of theism.

:facepalm2:

Thought you'd disagree :P

Ah well, I won't engage in a semantics game now. Was just pointing out a flaw in general understanding of "Agnostic"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Thought you'd disagree :hmm:

my facepalm was for harriet

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Thought you'd disagree :hmm:

my facepalm was for harriet

Ah..! I seem to remember you defining yourself as agnostic :P

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteI will not waste time in debate with anyone who does this. In my opinion, you are here to play games and see what kind of trouble you can make. If I don't see otherwise from you soon, your time here will be very brief. Trolling is not something I have patience with, and you are pushing it.

McQ, how do you expect to conduct an honest search for the truth if you get so angry when people disagree with you.  seriously, why should you get angry if someone disagrees with you.  if i'm stupid then why should that make you angry?  

QuoteWhere do you get your knowledge of the assertions you are making? Be specific and elaborate fully, please.
 

it's called common sense.  where there is a design there is a designer.  random forces don't design.  common sense.  now, how something comes from nothing, i don't know and neither do you, common sense doesn't teach us that.

QuoteWhere is the evidence to back up your assertions? Be specific and elaborate fully on them, once again.

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.

QuoteWhat is your level of science education?

pretty high. what's yours?

QuoteDo you understand what a bad analogy is?

yes, do you?

QuoteYou seem to think your analogies are representative of reality. They are not. Your analogies to describe your ideas are simply flawed.

demonstrate why

QuoteYou have simply repeated assertions that are patently false, over and over.

evidence please

You chose poorly, harriet. I wrote very simple questions and used words carefully. You have chosen to ignore civil answers and take the smartass route instead. Funny though, because I figured you would do that. Looks like I estimated you correctly. Before your almost inevitable ban, I want you to know a couple of things. One is that I am not even remotely angry. Nothing approaching that has crossed my mind with you. You assumed wrongly, as you have done since you got here. At best, I'm mildly annoyed with having to repeat myself, but I wouldn't have taken the time if it bothered me that much. So nice try with your accusation, but wrong.

You chose not to answer a single question I asked you with a straight answer. Pretty unwise thing to do, when you've got two strikes already, and one of the forum Mods asks you for a straight answer. I'll go so far as to label you a phoney and a liar as well. If you had an inkling of scientific education, you would not have made the baseless assertions you made.

By the way, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Biology (which only really means I was earnest enough to study in school to get it), so big whoopdie-doo; a Bachelor's Degree in Geography too, but I have twenty years of work experience in the fields of biology, bio-pharma manufacturing, research and development, and hematology and oncology, working with molecular compounds which target among other things, human DNA. That's how I know your DNA analogy is so laughable.

If you are here to learn, let's see it now. Otherwise, enjoy some time away from the forum.

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.

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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

Quotewhere 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

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

 :yay:  

@ xSilverPhinx

Spot on!

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"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.    

Quotenuclear 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.  

QuoteYou'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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteSelf 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.  

QuoteWhat 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]

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"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.    

Quotenuclear 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.  

QuoteYou'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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteSelf 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.  

QuoteWhat 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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"since you provide no reasoning to support that statement then it's just mere opinion

The pot calling the light bulb black.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"let's say that we visited another planet and found a house an abandoned colony on it.  

So, the universe is a house now?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "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.

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?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "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.

Prove it.

(See what i did there?)

 

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "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.

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:  

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "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.

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:

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.

Quote from: "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.

now, Whitney, you're just making up rules.  i read the rules.  no where in the rules does it say you are obligated to respond to someone.  why don't you just admit that you hate my ideas.  how can you call yourself an honest intellectual if you ban people from your forum for violating rules that do not exist?  besides McQ's response is just something about shampoo




1. CIVILITY: To maintain a happy and productive forum atmosphere, members are to remember the importance of civility by striving to comply with the forums conduct guidelines.

2. RIGHT TO PRIVACY: Unless required by law, the personal information of forum members shall not be revealed by any registered or administrative member. The HAF administrative staff cannot be held responsible for private information a member chooses to make public.

CONDUCT GUIDELINES

TIME OUT: All members should take time to think and cool down before responding to posts in an angry, disrespectful, or otherwise inappropriate tone (including intoxication). This approach will help to maintain a civil tone and allow members to avoid making posts they will later regret.

INTERNATIONAL: This forum has membership from various parts of the world. People of many ethnicities, cultures, religions, lack of religions, etc. do not always understand slang, sarcasm, or attitudes. Members should keep this in mind when posting in debates or discussions in order to avoid unnecessary turmoil.''

NO RACISM: Racism and other forms of hate speech will simply not be tolerated by the administrators of this forum.

NO PREACHING: While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike.

NO SPAM: If this is your first visit to the forum and you post a link, copy paste text, etc it will be considered spam and may be removed or partially removed by a moderator at their own discretion without notice.

NO PLAGIARISM: When quoting from a source other than yourself give credit where credit is due: use citations, links, names, etc. when possible. Academic integrity is important to the members of HAF. Adding your opinion alongside cited text will not only improve the quality of your post but is encouraged.

WORK FRIENDLY: Keep forum content work friendly. For instance, if an image you want to post is not appropriate for a work environment then link to the image rather than placing the image in your post.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS: Although we realize this can be difficult, please try very hard not to feed the trolls. It also should go without saying that trolling is not allowed on this forum. For more information please see Trolling 101: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2332

NO SOCK PUPPETS: To avoid confusion, each member is only allowed one account. If you are going to be sharing a computer/IP with a friend you must notify an admin upon sign up.

QUOTES: To avoid confusion and maintain readability, members are expected to use the quote feature. Those who are not aware of how to use the quote codes on a forum can visit our tutorial: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=203

SIGNATURES: To maintain easy readability of forum threads, signatures should be non-obstructive. Links to outside sites are allowed as long as their content does not promote hate or violate national/international law. Members shall limit the size of their signature images to no larger than 468px wide by 60px tall.

Harriet, do you pay for this site?  Do you help run it?  No?  Guess who does?  Whitney.  You're allowed to be here because she hasn't banned you yet.  Now, it's obvious to me that you're looking to be banned.  Trolls love being banned, they see it as some ridiculous badge of honor.  So keep up the snarky milarky and we'll see you in a week or never, ok?  Ok.  Dancing banana.   :bananacolor:  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "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.

now, Whitney, you're just making up rules.  i read the rules.  no where in the rules does it say you are obligated to respond to someone.  why don't you just admit that you hate my ideas.  how can you call yourself an honest intellectual if you ban people from your forum for violating rules that do not exist? besides McQ's response is just something about shampoo

I believe this is the post Whitney was referring to: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4967&p=67198#p67198.  But maybe if you actually read people's posts before you started spewing uneducated, unfounded BS you would know that.  The fact is you CAN'T answer McQ's questions, because it would only prove the point he and everyone else has already made-you don't know jack.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"now, Whitney, you're just making up rules.  i read the rules.  no where in the rules does it say you are obligated to respond to someone.  why don't you just admit that you hate my ideas.  how can you call yourself an honest intellectual if you ban people from your forum for violating rules that do not exist?  besides McQ's response is just something about shampoo

Ignoring a mod or other members amounts to this:

NO PREACHING: While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike.

NO SPAM: If this is your first visit to the forum and you post a link, copy paste text, etc it will be considered spam and may be removed or partially removed by a moderator at their own discretion without notice.

If you write something that is not to be debated, ask for it to be locked. Otherwise, answer the inquiries from the staff and as many as you can from other members. An oversight here and there can happen, but when warned by the staff or asked by another member to respond to a specific post or question, the proper, grown up way to react is to simply follow the instructions.

When an inquiry is conduct or information quality related and comes from the staff members, you have to answer it or risk a ban in either case.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"re the anthro princip.  this does not disprove intelligent design.  

The anthropic principle doesn't prove one thing or another, we can't prove whether or not something set the parameters for the universe to order itself after the big bang, just as we can't prove or disprove god. That's up to your beliefs, but there is proof that the universe orders itself, proof that people either ignore or are ignorant of.

Quotelet'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.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I'm talking about the universe (existence) itself, not parts of the universe, such as another geographical location, planet or even the other side of the universe.

Mankind, and everything living and non living in this universe is "designed", not by intelligent conscious forces but by the interaction of matter through physical forces (gravity, inter and intra atomic forces, etc) which order the universe.

Quoteconsider 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.

If i interpret your thought experiment as 10 rooms located in this universe, where the laws are universal, then this is how it goes:

If all rooms contained the same particles interacting in the same conditions (temperature, pressure ect) then they will all unite and produce complexity. Whether or not they perform amazingly complex operations depends on their intrinsic properties. If each room contained different particles or conditions, then that sort of breaks your argument down and makes it pointless. There's no reason to expect particles with different properties or under different conditions to act the same way anyways.

If you insist that the basic building blocks and conditions in each room are the same, but that for some reason complexity does not arise in 9 rooms, then the laws are not the same in every room.

Since the laws are universal I'm going to assume in this thought experiment that each room would have to represent a different universe, each with different laws. This would exclude any observer from the outside and their ability to conclude anything because, realistically, observers are confined to their universe.

Since different sets of laws cause different interactions, and if one universe just so happens to have the set of laws that allows for complexity to arise, then it's plausible to think that one might order itself into a lifeform. In the 1 out of 10 universes, one did. Lets say that 1 universe that worked is ours.

I said egocentric earlier because being the result of of universe, it's quite obvious we would have strong intuitive reasons to believe that we were the reason and not the result.

In this scenario, if there were an observer outside all 10 universes seeing that one has complexity, then that observer would either conclude that there was an element of chance involved (if the cause and effects that set those parameters are unknown) or that god couldn't get it right in 9 universes for some reason.  :cool: : (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.easyelements.com%2Fimage-files%2Fsnowflake-brush-set.jpg&hash=54a01d27ca9f3b7096f1e4184b540e4e4c1c7f93)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2Fmsnbc%2FComponents%2FPhotos%2F060113%2F060113_snowflake_stamps_11a.widec.jpg&hash=c77df4b6708daf512e1d6a3c5b4fac416fc167e0)

Amazingly complex, isn't it? Looks a bit like a sculpture created by an intelligent designer and if you were to bring a snowflake to a human being who never saw or even heard of one, do you think they would say that it was designed? I really think they would.  
What caused it to order itself into a complex structure? The intrinsic properties of water when it solidifies, no intelligent external organiser needed.

Quoteit'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.

The parameters are "fine tuned" because we're here to say it is. I'm not challenging the fact that the universe has parameters. I just think that thinking we're the goal is inaccurate.

We came into existence out of the interaction between matter and energy respecting those parameters, so naturally they have everything to do with our existence. But while you say observers/life was the goal (the universe is the way it is so that[/i] we can exist), I say that's what whatever observer in a given universe would say about the universe which allowed for that observers existence (we exist because[/i] the universe is the way it is).

Quotechaotic 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.

Wind is an organisational force but not a fundamental physical force, responsible for organising the smallest building blocks.

These are:

Electric, Magnetic, and Gravitational.

These three are linked, though there isn't a theory which formally links gravity to electromagnetism yet. Then you have the  subsets which are the Strong nuclear force and the Weak nuclear force. These two cause the inter and intra atomic interaction which allows for molecules and compounds.

There's nothing chaotic about them. They have set, mathematical rules which cause ordered patterns.

Wind is a physical phenomena, just as erosion, rain ect...not a fundamental force. Macroscopically, it would fit into the 'environmental conditions' I mentioned in my first post.

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

I hope I've better shown my reasoning in this post.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "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.

now, Whitney, you're just making up rules.  i read the rules.  no where in the rules does it say you are obligated to respond to someone.  why don't you just admit that you hate my ideas.  how can you call yourself an honest intellectual if you ban people from your forum for violating rules that do not exist?  besides McQ's response is just something about shampoo




1. CIVILITY: To maintain a happy and productive forum atmosphere, members are to remember the importance of civility by striving to comply with the forums conduct guidelines.

2. RIGHT TO PRIVACY: Unless required by law, the personal information of forum members shall not be revealed by any registered or administrative member. The HAF administrative staff cannot be held responsible for private information a member chooses to make public.

CONDUCT GUIDELINES

TIME OUT: All members should take time to think and cool down before responding to posts in an angry, disrespectful, or otherwise inappropriate tone (including intoxication). This approach will help to maintain a civil tone and allow members to avoid making posts they will later regret.

INTERNATIONAL: This forum has membership from various parts of the world. People of many ethnicities, cultures, religions, lack of religions, etc. do not always understand slang, sarcasm, or attitudes. Members should keep this in mind when posting in debates or discussions in order to avoid unnecessary turmoil.''

NO RACISM: Racism and other forms of hate speech will simply not be tolerated by the administrators of this forum.

NO PREACHING: While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike.

NO SPAM: If this is your first visit to the forum and you post a link, copy paste text, etc it will be considered spam and may be removed or partially removed by a moderator at their own discretion without notice.

NO PLAGIARISM: When quoting from a source other than yourself give credit where credit is due: use citations, links, names, etc. when possible. Academic integrity is important to the members of HAF. Adding your opinion alongside cited text will not only improve the quality of your post but is encouraged.

WORK FRIENDLY: Keep forum content work friendly. For instance, if an image you want to post is not appropriate for a work environment then link to the image rather than placing the image in your post.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS: Although we realize this can be difficult, please try very hard not to feed the trolls. It also should go without saying that trolling is not allowed on this forum. For more information please see Trolling 101: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2332

NO SOCK PUPPETS: To avoid confusion, each member is only allowed one account. If you are going to be sharing a computer/IP with a friend you must notify an admin upon sign up.

QUOTES: To avoid confusion and maintain readability, members are expected to use the quote feature. Those who are not aware of how to use the quote codes on a forum can visit our tutorial: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=203

SIGNATURES: To maintain easy readability of forum threads, signatures should be non-obstructive. Links to outside sites are allowed as long as their content does not promote hate or violate national/international law. Members shall limit the size of their signature images to no larger than 468px wide by 60px tall.

HT your ideas are moronic, your attitude even worse. You have no intention of engaging with this community you are here to 'blow your own trumpet' and sod the consequences. If you are banned it will be a good thing as we won't have to put up with your drivel any more.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"now, Whitney, you're just making up rules.  i read the rules.  no where in the rules does it say you are obligated to respond to someone.  why don't you just admit that you hate my ideas.  how can you call yourself an honest intellectual if you ban people from your forum for violating rules that do not exist?  besides McQ's response is just something about shampoo

Ignoring a mod or other members amounts to this:

NO PREACHING: While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike.

NO SPAM: If this is your first visit to the forum and you post a link, copy paste text, etc it will be considered spam and may be removed or partially removed by a moderator at their own discretion without notice.

If you write something that is not to be debated, ask for it to be locked. Otherwise, answer the inquiries from the staff and as many as you can from other members. An oversight here and there can happen, but when warned by the staff or asked by another member to respond to a specific post or question, the proper, grown up way to react is to simply follow the instructions.

When an inquiry is conduct or information quality related and comes from the staff members, you have to answer it or risk a ban in either case.

yup...now...answer McQ's post or get banned for the above.  And no, I'm not talking about the shampoo comment (i don't think McQ posted that either, don't care to scroll up)

oh and I didn't think people were so stupid that I had to spell out "don't ignore the mods" in the rules....

Quote from: "Whitney"oh and I didn't think people were so stupid that I had to spell out "don't ignore the mods" in the rules....

Sadly, HT seems to have proven this isn't the case.   :yay:

Quote from: "Whitney"oh and I didn't think people were so stupid that I had to spell out "don't ignore the mods" in the rules....

They aren't. They just play the "Everything not forbidden must be permitted"-card rather than just act maturely.

What's the big deal with answering a question after all?! If most of us oversaw a question from somebody and were pointed to it, we'd just say "Oh..! Ok" and go on about getting some sort of an answer together or explain refusal to answer. No need to act like a five-year-old deprived of the green candy in favour of a blue one.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"....congrats to you, HT, you finally proved something!   :tgif:  

[spoiler:10o3ksp9] Shampoo 101

If only it were as simple as wash, rinse, repeat... When it comes to washing your hair, who knew that there was a right and a wrong way?!? Luckily Ouidad (top NYC hairstylist, curly hair authority, and author of Curl Talk) spills the suds to Glam on the right way to lather up.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.glam.com%2Fglampress%2Fbeauty%2FWashing-Hair.jpg&hash=409e7dc205ddcbc23d93ee9a582995c6b77999cc)

Shampoo Shopping Smarts:

Look for a shampoo that is mild so your hair will be cleansed without being stripped of its natural moisture. A gentle shampoo is one with a low pH (6.8 or less) that is formulated for daily use. Key shampoos to look for are those designed for chemically processed or color-treated hair as they aren’t made with abrasive ingredients and won’t drab down color.

To Lather Up or Not:

Now that the right bottle is sitting in the shower caddy, when should it be used? It’s all a matter of personal preference, hair texture and desired styling regime. Those with straight hair can shampoo the most (up to four or five times a week) because this hair type is the strongest and the least dry. If hair is curly, shampoo every two or three days. Curly hair tends to be drier, a key culprit to creating frizz and breakage. If you don’t shampoo every day still rinse daily with warm water and conditioner to keep hair hydrated and to revive the curl pattern. For extremely curly hair, shampoo only once a week. This hair type is the most delicate and dehydrated, so be sure to use a moisturizing shampoo.

Six Easy Steps to Shampooing Bliss:

Now that you have the right shampoo, Ouidad’s going to tell you how to use it!

1) Saturate your hair with luke warm water.

2) Pour shampoo into your palms and rub your palms together to create a lather.

3) Run hands through hair to evenly distribute shampoo throughout.

4) Using your fingertips, massage shampoo into the scalp.

5) Run your fingers downward to clean and detangle the hair. DON’T pile your hair on top of your head, added tugging and scrubbing leads to breakage.

6) Rinse with lukewarm water.

Now it’s time to hit the showersâ€"and wash your hair the right way!

-Kim Farrington[/spoiler:10o3ksp9]

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"besides McQ's response is just something about shampoo

roflol  roflol  roflol

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages39.fotki.com%2Fv1232%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1216184739910-vi.gif&hash=4e51efd08708598a749c1e3f70059284047d3b94)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages39.fotki.com%2Fv1232%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1216184739910-vi.gif&hash=4e51efd08708598a749c1e3f70059284047d3b94)

... ...
...  :D

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The anthropic principle doesn't prove one thing or another,

thank you for agreeing with me

Quotewe can't prove whether or not something set the parameters for the universe to order itself after the big bang,

take stonehenge.  we can't prove humans designed it, but would be ridiculous to think that it was the result of random forces.  it's the same with the fine-tuned universe.

Quotethere is proof that the universe orders itself,

really? what proof is that?

QuoteMankind, and everything living and non living in this universe is "designed", not by intelligent conscious forces but by the interaction of matter through physical forces (gravity, inter and intra atomic forces, etc) which order the universe.

this is just a statement of faith, nothing more.

QuoteIf all rooms contained the same particles interacting in the same conditions (temperature, pressure ect) then they will all unite and produce complexity. Whether or not they perform amazingly complex operations depends on their intrinsic properties. If each room contained different particles or conditions, then that sort of breaks your argument down and makes it pointless. There's no reason to expect particles with different properties or under different conditions to act the same way anyways.

QuoteSince different sets of laws cause different interactions, and if one universe just so happens to have the set of laws that allows for complexity to arise, then it's plausible to think that one might order itself into a lifeform. In the 1 out of 10 universes, one did. Lets say that 1 universe that worked is ours.

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a triilion times you will hit the right number eventually fallacy. this is where atheists routinely go wrong.  in order to design something, you don't have to hit a hole in one in golf.  that's not what design is.  you have to hit 100 holes in one in a row.  think about designing a car.  it's design does not depend on you hitting a hole in one, it depends on you making numerous decisions and making them in exactly the right way.

QuoteI said egocentric earlier because being the result of of universe, it's quite obvious we would have strong intuitive reasons to believe that we were the reason and not the result.

not sure what you mean

QuoteIn this scenario, if there were an observer outside all 10 universes seeing that one has complexity, then that observer would either conclude that there was an element of chance involved (if the cause and effects that set those parameters are unknown) or that god couldn't get it right in 9 universes for some reason.  :cool: : (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.easyelements.com%2Fimage-files%2Fsnowflake-brush-set.jpg&hash=54a01d27ca9f3b7096f1e4184b540e4e4c1c7f93)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2Fmsnbc%2FComponents%2FPhotos%2F060113%2F060113_snowflake_stamps_11a.widec.jpg&hash=c77df4b6708daf512e1d6a3c5b4fac416fc167e0)

Amazingly complex, isn't it? Looks a bit like a sculpture created by an intelligent designer and if you were to bring a snowflake to a human being who never saw or even heard of one, do you think they would say that it was designed? I really think they would.  
What caused it to order itself into a complex structure? The intrinsic properties of water when it solidifies, no intelligent external organiser needed.

there is a big difference between a snow flake and say the simplest dna code in the simplest organism, or even our planet.  the snow flake has no interacting parts that cause an operation.

QuoteThe parameters are "fine tuned" because we're here to say it is. I'm not challenging the fact that the universe has parameters. I just think that thinking we're the goal is inaccurate.

again the fact that we're here really in no way defeats the thesis that fine-tuning requires intelligence.  what we say does not matter.  an object is fine-tune irregardless of human observation.  if all humans died tommorrow the great pyramids would still be fine tuned

QuoteWe came into existence out of the interaction between matter and energy respecting those parameters, so naturally they have everything to do with our existence. But while you say observers/life was the goal (the universe is the way it is so that[/i] we can exist), I say that's what whatever observer in a given universe would say about the universe which allowed for that observers existence (we exist because[/i] the universe is the way it is).

[/quote]
no, if the universe were composed of parameters that were ever changing and that really didn't matter and there were no evidence of fine-tuning then the case for atheism would be much stronger. let's take darwin's hypothesis that the cell was just a mere blob.  well if that was the case than natural selection would be much more plausible however as is the case the cell is composed of perhaps 40  or 50 parts and the dna code is written of thousands, if not millions of lines of code.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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 right that that wouldn't happen in a completely random universe. Guess what? It's not random. Since when does "not random" = "God did it"? I view it just the other way around. If everything were hocus pocus then there would be no order. Reality would be subject to bend at the every whim of the almighty magical god genie.

Quotetake stonehenge. we can't prove humans designed it, but would be ridiculous to think that it was the result of random forces. it's the same with the fine-tuned universe.

Consider the geometry of the snowflake. It appears designed, but is in fact the process of natural forces. Note: NOT RANDOM but natural. Natural does not equal random. You really need to get off that pony.

I am just curious as to what the criteria are to determine "design".  Are there criteria or is it simply a subjective interpretation?

Quote from: "Squid"I am just curious as to what the criteria are to determine "design".  Are there criteria or is it simply a subjective interpretation?

S/he can tell you next week after the 7 day ban is over.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Squid"I am just curious as to what the criteria are to determine "design".  Are there criteria or is it simply a subjective interpretation?

S/he can tell you next week after the 7 day ban is over.

I feel a Dembski reference appearing in the future.

(Delurking again, despite my better judgement, to make an overly long post - no time to make a shorter one! Sorry!)

I enjoy discussing the collection of topics surrounding "the design issue", but I know many atheists are sick of it.  After reading the entire thread, here are a couple of thoughts that I find often come up in this debate.

Fine Tuned For Life
The point of my reference earlier to Douglas Adam's puddle analogy is to suggest that despite appearances, the hole may not be designed to exactly fit the puddle's shape.  Instead the hole's shape is completely undesigned, and the puddle has conformed to the shape of the hole thanks to natural unguided-by-intelligence forces.  Similarly, what many are suggesting here is that the universe is not fine tuned for life-as-we-know-it, but that life is fine tuned for the universe-as-it-is.  If the universe had been different, then life would have been different (perhaps even unrecognisable to us as life, or perhaps no life at all).

The natural unguided processes by which existing life adapts and speciates in response to the universe-as-it-is is quite well understood - biological evolution.  Evolution is life fine-tuning itself to the way things are in the universe.  The process by which non-life organises into something we would label "life" is much less well understood.

In short, not only does life appear to be fine tuned to the universe, but the best explanation we have for how that fine tuning occurs does not require a guiding intelligence - the variations/mutations are essentially random, and the non-random selection process is unguided.

False Opposites
Another common feature I see in this debate is the use (perhaps unwittingly) of false opposites or false dilemmas.  Statements like this: "Either it is X or Y, and Y makes no sense, so it must be X", but on closer examination it turns out that X and Y are not mutually exclusive or opposites, but in fact could both be false or both be true at the same time.

Specifically:  "It is either designed or random".  This is a very common assertion (sometimes phrased as a question) that I think is based on a misunderstanding.  The true opposite of "designed" is not "random", it is "undesigned".  The true opposite of "random" is not designed, it is "ordered".  So by splitting this false opposite apart, we end up with two true opposite pairs:

• Random vs Ordered
• Designed vs Undesigned

A good sign that a pair are true opposites is that a certain thing cannot be both options at the same time - something cannot be both random AND ordered at the same time, cannot be both designed AND undesigned. Of course, complex things can contain both designed and undesigned elements, but the individual elements cannot be both designed and undesigned at the same time.

I claim that things CAN be either one of these two opposite pairs at the same time because random/ordered and designed/undesigned are not mutually exclusive.  I claim that things can be:

• designed AND ordered,
• undesigned AND ordered,
• undesigned AND random,
• designed AND random

A lot depends on definitions, but here are some simple off-the-cuff non-rigorous non-mathematical definitions (these are what I mean by these terms, I'm not proposing them as official or universal definitions):

• Designed - Conceived and planned out by an intelligent mind.
• Undesigned - Not the result of planning or design.
• Random - disordered and unpredictable
• Ordered - contains regularity, allows prediction

I stress - I'm NOT using a mathematical definition of random, more of a "common sense" or dice roll meaning (which I think is the meaning used by the original poster).  I fully realise that in a sense, truly random events, events that cannot be predicted even if we have all the information, may not exist on the macro scale, but I'm working with what I have been given.  The original poster is not arguing "there is no such thing as random forces", she is arguing "random forces cannot create apparent design/order".

• An example of something that is designed and ordered would be a computer - evidence for it being designed is plentiful (from the existence of the actual design documents, to artifacts within the computer strongly suggesting design - labels, machining marks, components that we also know are designed, etc), and there is a predictability and order to the computer's structure and operation (computers have common design features, and behave in (mostly!) predictable ways, while also containing both intended and unintended variety).
  
• An example of something that is undesigned and ordered would be a snowflake - there is no evidence of it being designed (no design documents, no internal evidence left behind by an intelligence, simple unguided procsses seem to be at work), and there is predictability and order to its structure (once snowflakes form, I can confidently predict they will have six points -- so despite variation in final appearance, there is clearly some non-random process at work).
  
• An example of something that is undesigned and random would be the fluttering sound of wind rushing through trees (there is no evidence that the sounds are the outcome of design, and they cannot be predicted (see note above about randomness)).
  
• An example of something that is designed and random would be the output from a random number generator (the output is the result of intelligent design, yet there is no order to the output, it is completely unpredictable (see note above about randomness)).

In short - Something can be both undesigned AND not random.  I personally call such things "natural".

All the best,

Gah, not only was my long reply so slow in coming that the original poster was banned in the meantime, but Sophus made one of my points in about one tenth of my word count!  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"thank you for agreeing with me

I'm not saying that because we can never prove that the universe wasn't designed that it means that it is intelligently designed, however.

Quotetake stonehenge.  we can't prove humans designed it, but would be ridiculous to think that it was the result of random forces.  it's the same with the fine-tuned universe.

Stonehenge is a bad example. The universe by itself will not produce a Stonehenge on its own, it needs external intelligent forces (engineers). You're sticking with man made examples, and though some people don't get it for some reason, the universe is not a man made structure.  :cool: (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.easyelements.com%2Fimage-files%2Fsnowflake-brush-set.jpg&hash=54a01d27ca9f3b7096f1e4184b540e4e4c1c7f93)

Quotethis is just a statement of faith, nothing more.

It's my opinion based on what I already know (self organisation) and belief (that the universe does not have an intelligent creator).

Quotethis is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a triilion times you will hit the right number eventually fallacy. this is where atheists routinely go wrong.  in order to design something, you don't have to hit a hole in one in golf.  that's not what design is.  you have to hit 100 holes in one in a row.  think about designing a car.  it's design does not depend on you hitting a hole in one, it depends on you making numerous decisions and making them in exactly the right way.

I think of it more in terms of you're here to say the universe is "fine tuned" because the tuning of the universe allowed it in the first place, and there is no goal.  

Once again, a car is not a good example, it does not self organise like the atoms do in a star. As for organic chemistry, amino acids do self organise, and some have even been found on objects from space. The cellular wall of a simple proto cell also self organises in water. RNA is a bit trickier, it's a simple molecule but as far as I know nobody's proven it to assemble itself yet.

Quotenot sure what you mean

Are you familiar with Douglas Adams' puddle quote?

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'  

We're the self-centered  puddle and the hole is our universe.

(just in case my choice of words has left you confused, I meant egocentered sort of in the same way as geocentrism is egocentered and not in the selfish individual sense)

Quoteyou're still supposing that getting it right to create a universe is similar to hitting a hole in one in golf.

No, chance never even crossed my mind. I'm saying that if an observer were to come to awareness in one room (doesn't matter which) because the conditions allowed that result, then that observer would think that those conditions were specifically set so that they could come into awareness. It's thinking that oneself is special enough to warrant an entire universe's creation.

The fine tuning argument sounds sort of like a computer simulation sort of universe to me...everything's coded in and pre programmed to reach specific results.  :hmm: Both are actually quite simple. And if you're going to calculate a probability basis for this, you'd have to have a wider picture rather than what you think the odds are for a light to sensitize special paper in this universe. The odds are quite high, in fact. In fact, based on what we can predict physically happens, we can say with absolute certainty that photosensitive paper will react with light when exposed to light.

Certain light wavelengths come into contact with light sensitive paper and transform the parts to reflect their wavelengths (colour), sort of in the simplified way light interacts with photosensitive cells in our retinas. The camera is a simplified version of an eye, it's black inside so that light doesn't reflect and leave the photosensitive paper white (that's why they come in those capsules, and if you open the camera while it's exposed, it'll ruin the negative photo. It's got a lens which direct the light rays onto the paper (which would be analogous to the retina) after those are in place it's basically the light that works on paper which transforms when it does.

The chemical/physical things that take place are actually very likely because of their properties. Photosensitive paper will interact with light whether in a camera or not.

Quotethe point is that the universe's constants probably require more precision than either of the 3 mad made constructs.

The precision they require are a direct result and calculation of physics such as gravity, centre of mass ect. Those come first, and those are inherent to the universe.

Quotethere is a big difference between a snow flake and say the simplest dna code in the simplest organism, or even our planet.  the snow flake has no interacting parts that cause an operation.

Yeah, I used to to show self organisation, not metabolism.

Quoteagain the fact that we're here really in no way defeats the thesis that fine-tuning requires intelligence.  what we say does not matter.  an object is fine-tune irregardless of human observation.  if all humans died tommorrow the great pyramids would still be fine tuned

Why does it require intelligence?


Were all the factors that make the building of the pyramids possible fine tuned for the pyramid? Or was the construction of the pyramids as they are the possible result of all the necessary factors? (gravity, centre of mass, how much weight the limestone bricks can take, etc)

Like I've repeatably said, we can never actually know whether those fundamental laws were calculated and "pre programmed" so that the universe could order itself in accordance. But there's no proof that they were, there's plenty of proof many people think of it that way, though.

QuoteWe came into existence out of the interaction between matter and energy respecting those parameters, so naturally they have everything to do with our existence. But while you say observers/life was the goal (the universe is the way it is so that[/i] we can exist), I say that's what whatever observer in a given universe would say about the universe which allowed for that observers existence (we exist because[/i] the universe is the way it is).

[/quote]
no, if the universe were composed of parameters that were ever changing and that really didn't matter and there were no evidence of fine-tuning then the case for atheism would be much stronger. let's take darwin's hypothesis that the cell was just a mere blob.  well if that was the case than natural selection would be much more plausible however as is the case the cell is composed of perhaps 40  or 50 parts and the dna code is written of thousands, if not millions of lines of code.[/quote]

I never said the parameters change. They've been fixed since the beginning of the universe, it's just they depend on interactions (the strength of gravitational force depends directly on mass and distance, for example) but gravity does what it does and will do what it has always done. The same with the other fundamental forces.
The fact that they depend on circumstances is what allowed for such variability and complexity in the universe in the first place.

You're talking about a an organic structure that we would recognise as a true cell nowadays. The first organic structures were not as complex as a simple modern bacterial cell, and we're getting very close to a comprehensive theory.

My PC is currently being stubborn but I believe this is the video where Dan Dennett explains the (in my opinion obvious) differences between art such as Andy Goldsworthy's and the art of Mother Nature. Methinks thou should watcheth it, harriet_tubman!

[youtube:3qdxf5xe]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ[/youtube:3qdxf5xe]

I love Andy Goldsworthy!  <3 <3 <3  And great point, too.  The more I hear from Dennett the more I like him.

Wow, great lecture.  :P[/spoiler:35lncl9p]