the universe is designed

[harriet_tubman]

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.

[pinkocommie]

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:  

[philosoraptor]

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.

[Asmodean]

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.

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: :


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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

since 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.

[Tank]

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.

[Whitney]

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....

[pinkocommie]

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:

[Asmodean]

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.  

[elliebean]

....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.



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]

[curiosityandthecat]

besides McQ's response is just something about shampoo

roflol  roflol  roflol

[Asmodean]

... ...
...  

[harriet_tubman]

The anthropic principle doesn't prove one thing or another,

thank you for agreeing with me

we 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.

there is proof that the universe orders itself,

really? what proof is that?

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.

this is just a statement of faith, nothing more.

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.

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.

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.

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.

not sure what you mean

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: :


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.

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.

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

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).

[/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.

[Sophus]

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.

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.

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.

[Squid]

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