AtheistNighmare, put up or shut up. Defend "intelligent Design".

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistNighmare, put up or shut up. Defend "intelligent Design".

  So far AtheistNightmare completely dismisses natural explanations regarding the origin and adaptation of life on Earth.  Fine.  Good.  Excellent.  Now let's move on to why anyone should accept "Intelligent Design" and let AtheistNightmare stop attacking evolution and start defending his own creation beliefs.  PS, citing Bible verses does not constitute evidence.


JeanChauvinSOCK...
TheistTroll
JeanChauvinSOCKPUPPET's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2012-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Prozac Man

Intelligent design? I thought most Chrisitans denied intelligent design. Since pattern = intelligence is ambigious as to what kind of intelligence we are talking about. So from a Christian point of view, intelligent design could justify satanism. I mean, Satanists could say that the ultimate pattern we see of intelligence are aliens used to build and control humans for the ultimate goal of Satan.

So I'm not sure why any Christian with half a brain would ever use such a absurd and stupid notion.

Even if I.D. was perfectly correct, it would be a far cry of proof that the Chrisitan God was the conclusion.

So Mote It Be,

Joachim Vadian


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Why do you bother?

Why do you bother?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Why do

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Why do you bother?

  Why do I bother ?  Because I have seen him consistently reject evidence for evolution that has clearly been explained to him.  He challenged we atheists to provide evidence as though it couldn't be done.   Let him provide us with the "scientific evidence" to back up his supposedly much more plausible theories.  Besides, isn't that what we do, day in and day out, is to allow theists to make their case so we can examine them under the light of reason ?  That's why.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Why do

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Why do you bother?

Same reason I bother with you and you bother with me. We have an interest.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Why do you bother?

Same reason I bother with you and you bother with me. We have an interest.

LMAO I definitely do not have any interest in you.

The reason why I discuss things with you is because you are slightly above irrational and of average intelligence.


 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The reason why I discuss things with you is because you are slightly above irrational and of average intelligence.

 

 

                           digital, if those are the qualities that truly interest you, you should thoroughly enjoy conversing with AtheistNightmare.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The reason why I discuss things with you is because you are slightly above irrational and of average intelligence.

 

 

                           digital, if those are the qualities that truly interest you, you should thoroughly enjoy conversing with AtheistNightmare.

slightly above irrational?? he is far below that, and average intelligence?? Atheist nightmare titles his OP as fallicies of evolution and goes into a rant about cosmology, thinks that evolution makes decisions and is some sort of intelligent being....Atheist nightmare is below moron, i mean calling him moron is an insult to morons everywhere....no he is a waste of time really at this point.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Why do you bother?

  Why do I bother ?  Because I have seen him consistently reject explanations that have clearly been explained to him.  He challenged atheist to provide evidence as though it couldn't be done.   Let him provide us with the "scientific evidence" to back up his supposedly much more plausible theories.  Besides, isn't that what we do, day in and day out, is to allow theists to make their case so we can examine them under the light of reason ?  That's why.

I have learned that when dealing with people who are extremists concerning politics or religion it is best to ignore them. I've seen some of the incoherent discussions. It actually hurts my eyes to read some of the hyperbole these people dish out.


 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I have

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I have learned that when dealing with people who are extremists concerning politics or religion it is best to ignore them. I've seen some of the incoherent discussions. It actually hurts my eyes to read some of the hyperbole these people dish out.

 

 

 

        Yes, it can be exhausting to deal with certain types, be it Young Earthers and their appalling ignorance or the woo woo of certain panentheists who I shall not name lest he reappear and start the same tiring arguments yet again.

 Nevertheless, this a forum for debating the validity of certain viewpoints and I would like AtheistNightmare to do his best to convince us why we should abandon our "faith" in evolution with its nature-based explanations in exchange for his supernatural explanation for how everything came to be....


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Latincanuck, you hit the nail smack on the head when you said that AtheistsNightmare doesn't even have the basics down.  It's pointless trying to talk to someone when you have to spend 90% of your time building bridges -- especially if they don't care about truth in the first place.  He prefers to chase his emotional high and his false beliefs are incorrigible.


Rekeisha
Posts: 7
Joined: 2012-01-08
User is offlineOffline
the world has pattern and

the world has pattern and design to it. if it didn't it would be difficult to study and predict certain outcomes. in my entire life i have yet to see anything be organized  or even function by random chance.

when humans build or cultivate thing we have a process and the product  of our labor  can be dissected and traced back to the producer depending  upon the knowledge that is available about the producer.

  • the earth is in the perfect place to support us.
  • there is the moon that controls tides so that life is possible in the sea.
  • dna is a individual blue print for every living being  on the earth. the dna strand is complex and organize information so complex that it took us years to decode. If dna is random how long do u think it would take to stumble upon the right sequence ?

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
This thread is going to get

This thread is going to get really boring, really fast.

 

I'd offer to have Ben Stein drop by, but his arguments would likely revolve "Talmud is the indisputable word of Yahuweh blablabla". So yeah... destined to bore by "design", if you don't mind a pun.

I need to sleep some more Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rekeisha wrote:the world has

Rekeisha wrote:

the world has pattern and design to it. if it didn't it would be difficult to study and predict certain outcomes. in my entire life i have yet to see anything be organized  or even function by random chance.

when humans build or cultivate thing we have a process and the product  of our labor  can be dissected and traced back to the producer depending  upon the knowledge that is available about the producer.

  • the earth is in the perfect place to support us.
  • there is the moon that controls tides so that life is possible in the sea.
  • dna is a individual blue print for every living being  on the earth. the dna strand is complex and organize information so complex that it took us years to decode. If dna is random how long do u think it would take to stumble upon the right sequence ?

 

The earth is in a perfect place? What is perfect place for life? We have only been able to explore our planet, we have yet to go beyond our solar system to verify any other option, and as for the perfect place are you talking the exact distance we are at from the sun? Because that varies by over 2 million kms as it travels around the sun, we could be 5 million km closer and life could still thrive, we could be 5 million kms more way and life could still thrive.

As for the moon, the moon is not there for life to thrive, life has adapted to the earth, not the other way around. Complex structures happen naturally in nature, look at a snowflake, it is a very complex structure that forms naturally, DNA structure is no different, the question is more or less how it occurred, once it occured, like any chemical reaction, it may only work one way and only one way. Much like how water when it freezes forms a specific form, it cannot do anything, the same occurs with DNA.


Rekeisha
Posts: 7
Joined: 2012-01-08
User is offlineOffline
I agree the question is how

I agree the question is how it occurred

i believe that a super awesome and smart being made creation He started things off and maintains everything. so i will say anything that could be made (the universe, time, living things, ect.) is inside a box and the creator is outside the box.

what would be your belief on how it started

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Proof, please.

Rekeisha wrote:

I agree the question is how it occurred

i believe that a super awesome and smart being made creation He started things off and maintains everything. so i will say anything that could be made (the universe, time, living things, ect.) is inside a box and the creator is outside the box.

what would be your belief on how it started

 

 

or admit you are appealing to complexity and have no concrete idea of what you are talking about. And don't wave vaguely around at the ecosystems life has created as if this explains the source of the universe, abiogenesis and the meaning of it all. 

Just go ahead and admit you don't really know. That's what we do. Why can't you?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
1. The fine-tuning of the

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

   Now again, this is logically iron-clad argument.  That is to say if the premises are true, the conclusion follows inescapably.  So are the premises more plausible than their negation? 

   Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist. 

   For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123). And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. 

   So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Richard Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.  But even if we grant that SOMEHOW the universe did overcome this astronomical problem and provided these initial conditions for life to exist, how did life actually originate? Seems like the best answer an atheist can present is abiogenesis occurred, followed by Darwinian evolution.  Now I hold the view that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.  So I don't reject this claim based solely on the FACT that neither abiogenesis nor Darwinian evolution have EVER been observed (before anyone attempts to condemn and correct me, let me make it easy for you; point me to the recorded observation of abiogenesis and then list JUST ONE observation of an organism that occupied multiple Kingdoms of biological classification.) But also that the probability of this happening unguided is unrealistic.  To give just one example, Barrow and Tipler have calculated the probability of an evolutionary genome to be between (4-180)110000 and (4-360)110000.  Now multiply this by the improbabilities associated with the universe's formation.  So if this somehow did happen, it is rock solid proof of a miracle, and would therefore also be powerful evidence for the existence of God. 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hello jackspell

jackspell wrote:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

   Now again, this is logically iron-clad argument.  That is to say if the premises are true, the conclusion follows inescapably.  So are the premises more plausible than their negation? 

   Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist. 

   For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123). And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. 

   So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Richard Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.  But even if we grant that SOMEHOW the universe did overcome this astronomical problem and provided these initial conditions for life to exist, how did life actually originate? Seems like the best answer an atheist can present is abiogenesis occurred, followed by Darwinian evolution.  Now I hold the view that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.  So I don't reject this claim based solely on the FACT that neither abiogenesis nor Darwinian evolution have EVER been observed (before anyone attempts to condemn and correct me, let me make it easy for you; point me to the recorded observation of abiogenesis and then list JUST ONE observation of an organism that occupied multiple Kingdoms of biological classification.) But also that the probability of this happening unguided is unrealistic.  To give just one example, Barrow and Tipler have calculated the probability of an evolutionary genome to be between (4-180)110000 and (4-360)110000.  Now multiply this by the improbabilities associated with the universe's formation.  So if this somehow did happen, it is rock solid proof of a miracle, and would therefore also be powerful evidence for the existence of God. 

Let me give you an extreme over-simplification of what you are saying looks like to me.  3-2-1=0  or  3-1-1=1  Just because you want to void the idea of physical necessity or chance and arrive at intelligent design doesn't make it iron-clad evidence of god or anything else. It just means that you have justified your own theory to yourself by eliminating the things that you do not accept. You can post it in every thread or tattoo it across your back, but it doesn't prove anything else besides the fact that you agree with yourself. It may also be a great way for 2 theists to pat each other on the back in agreement.


 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
This seems to be a common

This seems to be a common theme among atheists. Why do so many of you have so much trouble understanding the goal of an argument when it is CLEARLY STATED. This does not attempt to argue for the existence of the Christian God! Rather, it argues first for an Intelligent Personal Agent as the cause of the universe. And it comes to me as no surprise you would object to this being a logically sound argument. I didn't expect you to understand logic at all. If you did, you would understand that if you wish to deny the conclusion, you must argue one or more of its premises. So I invite you to take your best shot.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Rekeisha

latincanuck wrote:

Rekeisha wrote:

the world has pattern and design to it. if it didn't it would be difficult to study and predict certain outcomes. in my entire life i have yet to see anything be organized  or even function by random chance.

when humans build or cultivate thing we have a process and the product  of our labor  can be dissected and traced back to the producer depending  upon the knowledge that is available about the producer.

  • the earth is in the perfect place to support us.
  • there is the moon that controls tides so that life is possible in the sea.
  • dna is a individual blue print for every living being  on the earth. the dna strand is complex and organize information so complex that it took us years to decode. If dna is random how long do u think it would take to stumble upon the right sequence ?

 

The earth is in a perfect place? What is perfect place for life? We have only been able to explore our planet, we have yet to go beyond our solar system to verify any other option, and as for the perfect place are you talking the exact distance we are at from the sun? Because that varies by over 2 million kms as it travels around the sun, we could be 5 million km closer and life could still thrive, we could be 5 million kms more way and life could still thrive.

As for the moon, the moon is not there for life to thrive, life has adapted to the earth, not the other way around. Complex structures happen naturally in nature, look at a snowflake, it is a very complex structure that forms naturally, DNA structure is no different, the question is more or less how it occurred, once it occured, like any chemical reaction, it may only work one way and only one way. Much like how water when it freezes forms a specific form, it cannot do anything, the same occurs with DNA.

You are very close to understanding the foundation of Intelligent Design's arguement, so let me help you with the last piece of it, "Specified Complexity". In order for something to pass the explanatory filter and warrant design, it most contain a sufficient amount of complexity, as well as specificity. So you are correct to say snowflakes are complex, but aren't designed. No ID advocate would oppose that, because they have no SPECIFICITY. Each individual is unique. On the other hand, some things are SPECIFIC without complexity. One of many examples in nature would be the formation of a salt crystal. It follows a well defined set of laws and produces an independently given repetitive pattern. But this pattern will also be very simple. Thus, it fails to warrant design also. However, you whiffed big time by claiming DNA is no different. Of course it is astronomically complex, but also incomprehensibly specific. It is the blue prints for building a human being! What could be more specific? And did you really say that water freezes in a specific form? Wow! Apparently you have no knowledge in the field of crystallization. I invite you to check out the 7 crystal lattice systems as well as the 14 bravais lattice, and how many of them frozen water can occupy.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'll bite jackspell

Ok, I'll bite Smiling

jackspell wrote:

 

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Usually you back up your premises but I'll try and elaborate on it.  At this point I'd like to introduce you to a tool designed to economize energy when deciding which hypothesis to pursue.  It is called Ockham's razor.  It is usually incorrectly paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is the correct one".  In truth, it logically states that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the hypothesis making the least naked assumptions has a higher chances of being correct.  

Let's take a step back and see what we're arguing about here.  We're arguing about the unknowable, the "primary cause", something beyond our possible comprehension.  Basically, we will never be able to convince one another, or provide conclusive evidence.  All we have is logic and empirical observations of our universe.  So let's establish our argument's frame of reference in this fashion.  Logic and empirical observations.  

Ok, so what are you proposing here?

p1. The fine-tuning of the the universe is due to physical necessity, chance or design. 

So let's assume that we agree on EVERYTHING up to this point for the sake of the argument. Our leading hypothesis are

h1. physical necessity

h2. chance

h3 design

let's start with h1.  I'm sure you have some lock tight proof and examples on how the constants could be different, and are not just basing your argument on WCL's argument.  While WCL is a decent philosopher, he is a very shitty physicist, a presupposition of this magnitude is based on nothing more then to allow the implication of a number of possible choices for the constants.  We have no way of proving whether the constants could be different.  It may very well be that the quantum foam is eternal and dictates the constants.  So, what are the naked assertions for this possibility?

Naked assumptions:

1. A near zero sum energy quantum foam is eternal.

2. The constants are physically necessary. 

h2. chance.

This actually sort of requires the first hypothesis to be incorrect.  In order for the constants to be the way they are by chance, there have to be a multitude of possible parameters to choose from.  So, making the absolutely necessary assumption that h1 fails, what we have are

Naked assumptions:

1. A multitude of parameter values are possible for the constants.

2. if 1. then a universe is possible for each set of parameters. 

3. this is one of those universes that allows for life, hence we're here by CHANCE, to question the universal constants. (anthropic principle)

h3. design.

well.  firstly both h1 and h2 are incorrect.  This really needs no introduction, there is an intelligence out there that set the universe in motion with the current parameters.

Naked assumptions:

1. h1 is incorrect

2. h2 is incorrect

3. There exists something outside this universe

4. That something is governed by laws in such a way as to be organised.

5. This organisation allows for intent. (intentional causation)

6. This organisation allows for intelligence. (in order for this to be "designed" )

7. X where X is every other condition necessary for this intentional intelligent organisation to exist.

 

You can only assign degrees of probability to each hypothesis, but Ockham's razor dictates that your second premise is a non sequitur, so your argument fails.

 

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:1. The

jackspell wrote:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

   Now again, this is logically iron-clad argument.  That is to say if the premises are true, the conclusion follows inescapably.  So are the premises more plausible than their negation? 

   Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist. 

   For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123). And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. 

   So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Richard Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.  But even if we grant that SOMEHOW the universe did overcome this astronomical problem and provided these initial conditions for life to exist, how did life actually originate? Seems like the best answer an atheist can present is abiogenesis occurred, followed by Darwinian evolution.  Now I hold the view that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.  So I don't reject this claim based solely on the FACT that neither abiogenesis nor Darwinian evolution have EVER been observed (before anyone attempts to condemn and correct me, let me make it easy for you; point me to the recorded observation of abiogenesis and then list JUST ONE observation of an organism that occupied multiple Kingdoms of biological classification.) But also that the probability of this happening unguided is unrealistic.  To give just one example, Barrow and Tipler have calculated the probability of an evolutionary genome to be between (4-180)110000 and (4-360)110000.  Now multiply this by the improbabilities associated with the universe's formation.  So if this somehow did happen, it is rock solid proof of a miracle, and would therefore also be powerful evidence for the existence of God. 

you should cite your sources when you cut and paste Smiling

http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/craigs-explanation-of-teleogical-argument/

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
yawn... stretches... if

yawn... stretches... if Intelligent Design proponents come from creationists, why are there still creationists? 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu

Good eye Ktulu!!!!  Word for word.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:yawn...

Ktulu wrote:

yawn... stretches... if Intelligent Design proponents come from creationists, why are there still creationists? 

 

Aliens/E.T. can't build solar systems?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:Good eye

tonyjeffers wrote:

Good eye Ktulu!!!!  Word for word.

 

Perhaps he could also be your set of eyes.  It's apparent yours are lacking the ability to see that is not word for word, assuming you are literate.  And I never attempted to pass that off as my own argument.  But I fully support it and will defend any objections to it. 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
   THAT IS HILARIOUS! So

   THAT IS HILARIOUS! So my argument fails because "You can only assign degrees of probability to each hypothesis, but Ockham's razor dictates that your second premise is a non sequitur, so your argument fails."? I must admit, prior to that sentence I was convinced you would produce some valid objections.  Man, was I wrong!

   First off, Occam's razor doesn't "dictate" anything.  It is only a  Heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. Better yet, HOW CAN A PREMISE BE A NON SEQUITUR? By all means, explain! 

   This is by far the most comical objection I've heard.  But the best part is how many people commented on it like it was monumentally successful.  This site is awesome!

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey Jackoff Theistard

jackspell wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

Good eye Ktulu!!!!  Word for word.

 

Perhaps he could also be your set of eyes.  It's apparent yours are lacking the ability to see that is not word for word, assuming you are literate.  And I never attempted to pass that off as my own argument.  But I fully support it and will defend any objections to it. 

Don't mix my quotes in with yours. All I said was "Good eye Ktulu!!!! Word for word". I thought you were better at cutting and pasting other peoples shit like your "UNoriginal" posts. Jackhole!


 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
   I appreciate the effort

   I appreciate the effort to let me know what you said, but unlike you, I have no problem comprehending the English language.  So I know exactly what you said.  And is that suppose to be insulting when you call my post "unoriginal? Any real seeker of truth knows those arguments have been around for generations.  You want to know why? Because people like you can't even knock a dent in them.  Mostly because you lack the mental capacity to understand them, let alone refute them.  Your buddy their was close to being the first to at least present a cogent argument.  When suddenly, the wheels fell of.  Failing the argument based on Occam's razor "dictating" my second premise is a "non-sequitur"??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  And Jackhole, really? That's impressive.  You think of that all by yourself?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:jackspell

tonyjeffers wrote:

jackspell wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

Good eye Ktulu!!!!  Word for word.

 

Perhaps he could also be your set of eyes.  It's apparent yours are lacking the ability to see that is not word for word, assuming you are literate.  And I never attempted to pass that off as my own argument.  But I fully support it and will defend any objections to it. 

Don't mix my quotes in with yours. All I said was "Good eye Ktulu!!!! Word for word". I thought you were better at cutting and pasting other peoples shit like your "UNoriginal" posts. Jackhole!

 

 

The Immortal Dickhead Open BBCode Error rears it's ugly hide again...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:   I

jackspell wrote:

   I appreciate the effort to let me know what you said, but unlike you, I have no problem comprehending the English language.  So I know exactly what you said.  And is that suppose to be insulting when you call my post "unoriginal? Any real seeker of truth knows those arguments have been around for generations.  You want to know why? Because people like you can't even knock a dent in them.  Mostly because you lack the mental capacity to understand them, let alone refute them.  Your buddy their was close to being the first to at least present a cogent argument.  When suddenly, the wheels fell of.  Failing the argument based on Occam's razor "dictating" my second premise is a "non-sequitur"??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  And Jackhole, really? That's impressive.  You think of that all by yourself?

Smiling non sequituir means does not follow, meaning that you cannot logically deduce the second premise from the first premise.  

I wasn't even attacking your originality, I have no expectations of your intelligence.  You present an argument and I was setting the frame of reference as logic and empirical data, I expected you to agree that Ockham's razor will allow you to only predict degrees of probability.  You may very well me correct, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but it doesn't follow from you chain of thought.  

From our initial frame of reference, your argument... (I'm sorry I mean the argument you copied and slightly changed and then pasted) is not logically coherent. 

I would like you to please refute my objection, preferably with something not copied and pasted Smiling but I'll take what I can get. 

I would also like to note that I was just trying to show you how you are wrong using logic alone, if you would like a scientifically factual refutation and support of my position I can oblige, but I fear we will quickly spiral into pseudo science hell as with all ID arguments. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:   THAT IS

jackspell wrote:

   THAT IS HILARIOUS! So my argument fails because "You can only assign degrees of probability to each hypothesis, but Ockham's razor dictates that your second premise is a non sequitur, so your argument fails."? I must admit, prior to that sentence I was convinced you would produce some valid objections.  Man, was I wrong!

   First off, Occam's razor doesn't "dictate" anything.  It is only a  Heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. Better yet, HOW CAN A PREMISE BE A NON SEQUITUR? By all means, explain! 

   This is by far the most comical objection I've heard.  But the best part is how many people commented on it like it was monumentally successful.  This site is awesome!

Really? that's the most comical objection you've ever heard? that's the best you can come up with? a Heuristic preference? I thought I made it clear we're arguing from a pragmatical paradigm since we have no way of verifying the outcome you silly man. 

What else are you going to base your decision on if not Heuristically? you're going to pray and wait for a sign... Read what I wrote, I actually outlined that Ockham's is a tool to economize energy, a pragmatical HEURISTIC method, not a law.  I fail to see how that's funny. 

Your first premise lists unsupported hypothesis and your second premise goes on to mention two of those as not possible... which DOES NOT FOLLOW coherently, I'm not sure why you are having a difficulty with this concept, maybe there's something else WCL has on his website regarding this, perhaps you can cut and paste that in here.  He at least attempts to sound intelligent and has a sense of humor.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Ktulu

Kapkao wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

yawn... stretches... if Intelligent Design proponents come from creationists, why are there still creationists? 

 

Aliens/E.T. can't build solar systems?

of course they can, I didn't say he was wrong, i simply said his argument was most probably wrong as there are other hypothesis making less assumptions.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:   THAT IS

jackspell wrote:

   THAT IS HILARIOUS! So my argument fails because "You can only assign degrees of probability to each hypothesis, but Ockham's razor dictates that your second premise is a non sequitur, so your argument fails."? I must admit, prior to that sentence I was convinced you would produce some valid objections.  Man, was I wrong!

   First off, Occam's razor doesn't "dictate" anything.  It is only a  Heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. Better yet, HOW CAN A PREMISE BE A NON SEQUITUR? By all means, explain! 

   This is by far the most comical objection I've heard.  But the best part is how many people commented on it like it was monumentally successful.  This site is awesome!

I am sorry, but knocking over the chess board and falsely claiming victory because of your emotions does not constitute "awesome". It merely means you are fixated on your own wishful thinking.

The only thing you have succeeded at is being a legend in your own mind.

Ockham's Razor is the biggest enemy to any god claim. God claims are like taking apart the entire car engine as a default first step because the car doesn't start. Ockham' Razor doesn't start from bullshit taking the entire engine apart, but the most likely answer lies in that which has the least baggage, such as battery, battery cable, starter.. God as a claim has needless baggage, compared to the obvious answer is that people like the idea of a fictional super hero.

If this is the way you think, you are going to mentally fuck yourself in every aspect of your life, even outside the issue of god claims.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Ok, I'll bite

Ktulu wrote:

Ok, I'll bite Smiling

jackspell wrote:

 

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Usually you back up your premises but I'll try and elaborate on it.  At this point I'd like to introduce you to a tool designed to economize energy when deciding which hypothesis to pursue.  It is called Ockham's razor.  It is usually incorrectly paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is the correct one".  In truth, it logically states that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the hypothesis making the least naked assumptions has a higher chances of being correct.  

Let's take a step back and see what we're arguing about here.  We're arguing about the unknowable, the "primary cause", something beyond our possible comprehension. P Basically, we will never be able to convince one another, or provide conclusive evidence.  All we have is logic and empirical observations of our universe.  So let's establish our argument's frame of reference in this fashion.  Logic and empirical observations.  

Ok, so what are you proposing here?

p1. The fine-tuning of the the universe is due to physical necessity, chance or design. 

So let's assume that we agree on EVERYTHING up to this point for the sake of the argument. Our leading hypothesis are

h1. physical necessity

h2. chance

h3 design

let's start with h1.  I'm sure you have some lock tight proof and examples on how the constants could be different, and are not just basing your argument on WCL's argument.  While WCL is a decent philosopher, he is a very shitty physicist, a presupposition of this magnitude is based on nothing more then to allow the implication of a number of possible choices for the constants.  We have no way of proving whether the constants could be different.  It may very well be that the quantum foam is eternal and dictates the constants.  So, what are the naked assertions for this possibility?

Naked assumptions:

1. A near zero sum energy quantum foam is eternal.

2. The constants are physically necessary. 

h2. chance.

This actually sort of requires the first hypothesis to be incorrect.  In order for the constants to be the way they are by chance, there have to be a multitude of possible parameters to choose from.  So, making the absolutely necessary assumption that h1 fails, what we have are

Naked assumptions:

1. A multitude of parameter values are possible for the constants.

2. if 1. then a universe is possible for each set of parameters. 

3. this is one of those universes that allows for life, hence we're here by CHANCE, to question the universal constants. (anthropic principle)

h3. design.

well.  firstly both h1 and h2 are incorrect.  This really needs no introduction, there is an intelligence out there that set the universe in motion with the current parameters.

Naked assumptions:

1. h1 is incorrect

2. h2 is incorrect

3. There exists something outside this universe

4. That something is governed by laws in such a way as to be organised.

5. This organisation allows for intent. (intentional causation)

6. This organisation allows for intelligence. (in order for this to be "designed" )

7. X where X is every other condition necessary for this intentional intelligent organisation to exist.

 

You can only assign degrees of probability to each hypothesis, but Ockham's razor dictates that your second premise is a non sequitur, so your argument fails.

 

 

 

Help me out here so I can respond. How specifically does Occams razor oppose this?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:1. The

jackspell wrote:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

   Now again, this is logically iron-clad argument.  That is to say if the premises are true, the conclusion follows inescapably.  So are the premises more plausible than their negation? 

   Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist. 

   For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123). And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. 

   So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Richard Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.  But even if we grant that SOMEHOW the universe did overcome this astronomical problem and provided these initial conditions for life to exist, how did life actually originate? Seems like the best answer an atheist can present is abiogenesis occurred, followed by Darwinian evolution.  Now I hold the view that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.  So I don't reject this claim based solely on the FACT that neither abiogenesis nor Darwinian evolution have EVER been observed (before anyone attempts to condemn and correct me, let me make it easy for you; point me to the recorded observation of abiogenesis and then list JUST ONE observation of an organism that occupied multiple Kingdoms of biological classification.) But also that the probability of this happening unguided is unrealistic.  To give just one example, Barrow and Tipler have calculated the probability of an evolutionary genome to be between (4-180)110000 and (4-360)110000.  Now multiply this by the improbabilities associated with the universe's formation.  So if this somehow did happen, it is rock solid proof of a miracle, and would therefore also be powerful evidence for the existence of God. 

 

#2 is a naked assertion without support, as such, it may be dismissed without support.

Person A has won the lottery, beating a 15,000,000 to one chance. If he had chosen 1 digit wrong, he would not have won... that does not imply, suggest or assert that the lottery was fixed or fine tuned so that A could win.
 

The fine tuning argument is absurd with it's reversal of logic and it's assumption that life somehow influenced the characteristics of the universe rather than that the characteristics of the universe directed the shape of life. You have placed the cosmological cart before the metaphoric horse.
Yes, it's complex, yes it's really, really big... that doesn't mean fairies exist, and neither does it suggest your god.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:jackspell

Louis_Cypher wrote:

jackspell wrote:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

   Now again, this is logically iron-clad argument.  That is to say if the premises are true, the conclusion follows inescapably.  So are the premises more plausible than their negation? 

   Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist. 

   For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123). And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. 

   So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Richard Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.  But even if we grant that SOMEHOW the universe did overcome this astronomical problem and provided these initial conditions for life to exist, how did life actually originate? Seems like the best answer an atheist can present is abiogenesis occurred, followed by Darwinian evolution.  Now I hold the view that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.  So I don't reject this claim based solely on the FACT that neither abiogenesis nor Darwinian evolution have EVER been observed (before anyone attempts to condemn and correct me, let me make it easy for you; point me to the recorded observation of abiogenesis and then list JUST ONE observation of an organism that occupied multiple Kingdoms of biological classification.) But also that the probability of this happening unguided is unrealistic.  To give just one example, Barrow and Tipler have calculated the probability of an evolutionary genome to be between (4-180)110000 and (4-360)110000.  Now multiply this by the improbabilities associated with the universe's formation.  So if this somehow did happen, it is rock solid proof of a miracle, and would therefore also be powerful evidence for the existence of God. 

 

#2 is a naked assertion without support, as such, it may be dismissed without support.

Person A has won the lottery, beating a 15,000,000 to one chance. If he had chosen 1 digit wrong, he would not have won... that does not imply, suggest or assert that the lottery was fixed or fine tuned so that A could win.
 

The fine tuning argument is absurd with it's reversal of logic and it's assumption that life somehow influenced the characteristics of the universe rather than that the characteristics of the universe directed the shape of life. You have placed the cosmological cart before the metaphoric horse.
Yes, it's complex, yes it's really, really big... that doesn't mean fairies exist, and neither does it suggest your god.

LC >;-}>

 

Okay tell me this, I am the lottery supervisor. I win it 10 consecutive times. Do you cause me of cheating?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Some other examples for

Some other examples for irreducible complexity include

1. Virus Detection. Previously thought that 30% of proteins which do not form are useless. In actuality it is because of these 30% of proteins which "disappear" which allows the body to detect the presence of the virus. This seemingly big "Flaw" is actually part of the bodies immune system.

2. Laryngeal Nerve of Giraffe- Evidence to suggest plays role in cough mechanism.

3. Junk DNA - At one point up to 90% of DNA accruded to to not coding for any proteins = other 90% junk DNA. More recently view has been changing, not for coding proteins, but for regulating protein coding, when to make proteins, when to stop, etc. This idea of 90% junk DNA is false, it is not just mistakes that have been accumulated.

4. Butterfly - Metamorphosis

5. Selection as an intelligent act

6. Light-sensing system in animal eyes

7. Transport System within the cell

8. Blood Clotting System

Also, can someone update me about creationism? thanks! especially Young Earth Creationism- Where one problem is the light of stars/ earth being only 6000 years old?

Caduceus


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Mere wrote:Some other

Mere wrote:

Some other examples for irreducible complexity include

1. Virus Detection. Previously thought that 30% of proteins which do not form are useless. In actuality it is because of these 30% of proteins which "disappear" which allows the body to detect the presence of the virus. This seemingly big "Flaw" is actually part of the bodies immune system.

2. Laryngeal Nerve of Giraffe- Evidence to suggest plays role in cough mechanism.

3. Junk DNA - At one point up to 90% of DNA accruded to to not coding for any proteins = other 90% junk DNA. More recently view has been changing, not for coding proteins, but for regulating protein coding, when to make proteins, when to stop, etc. This idea of 90% junk DNA is false, it is not just mistakes that have been accumulated.

4. Butterfly - Metamorphosis

5. Selection as an intelligent act

6. Light-sensing system in animal eyes

7. Transport System within the cell

8. Blood Clotting System

Also, can someone update me about creationism? thanks! especially Young Earth Creationism- Where one problem is the light of stars/ earth being only 6000 years old?

 

 

 

                        Try this on for size;

            http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31241  

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: Okay tell

jackspell wrote:
Okay tell me this, I am the lottery supervisor. I win it 10 consecutive times. Do you cause me of cheating?

 

At that point I might, but you're also adding extra variables here. For example we know that you're the lottery supervisor IE we have documents, pictures, etc. that you are the supervisor and we also have proof that you have the ability to alter or influence the announced numbers etc. Then we would also look at the victories and how many others won along with you as well as when the ticket was purchased. If you bought the ticket say 5 days before the drawing and we notice that you've been talking to whoever runs the RNG to determine the numbers then yes, accusing you of cheating would be likely simply because of probable cause.

But, maybe you didn't cheat, for example there might actually be innocent explanations for each thing too, you always buy a ticket within 5 days of the lottery regardless and you have records that show as much. The person who runs the RNG system is actually a friend outside of work or the contact periods with them were solely within the confines of the workday. Also, it's possible that you and many others won the lottery consecutively as well, perhaps implying that there is instead some kind of flaw in the RNG, IE maybe it repeats certain numbers frequently or something similar that you and others picked up on and thus used to determine likely lottery numbers for your purchased tickets.

Let me ask you a different question, if you and I were in a park staring at the clouds in the sky and started to see patterns. Say we saw dragons or some similar shape in the clouds, would you assume that someone or something was up there shaping the clouds, IE shifting and molding their positions to take on certain shapes, especially if the shapes seemed consistently one type of thing? Or would you perhaps instead say that maybe a few of the first clouds looked like dragons so we tended to look for draconic shape in the other clouds, or maybe we had just watched a movie with a lot of dragons in it and thus had dragon on the brain?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:1. The

jackspell wrote:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Your opinion is not an argument. Prove 1, then prove 2. or sit down and shut up in the corner with all the other educational rejects who don't know the first thing about science and logic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Sigh....

This is great, when a group of primitives decide that their tenuous grasp of ill remembered high school biology is sufficient to challenge the greatest minds in the field of biology, NONE of which are creationists.

This is like a Pee Wee football team thinking they can beat the Rams... No really, you guys ARE that stupid.


No amount of word salad, conflation of terms and simplistic denial of facts alters the reality that Evolution is an observed FACT, and that Darwin's theory of HOW that fact works is still our best explanation of it.

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
No really, I insist.

 I insist that the ID, IC Creationist crowd offer up a step by step explanation in at LEAST as much detail as they demand of us, with peer reviewed documentation and empirical evididence  in the same quantity and quality that they insist we provide...for the magic.

I want a reasoned explanation of HOW YOUR GOD DID IT.

I don't want your cowardly attempts to shift the burden of proof...
I don't want to hear lame 'mysterious ways' crap...
If you want to run with the big dogs, bark, bite or don't get off the porch...

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jackspell wrote:
Okay tell me this, I am the lottery supervisor. I win it 10 consecutive times. Do you cause me of cheating?

Considering the proper analogy is losing 100 trillion times before getting 10 in a row I would say a supervisor should be smart enough not to throw money away like that.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml