Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[Nihilianth]

I agree. Good point.

I actually think that believers who won't stand next to their Abrahamic God and say, "yeah ... my god kills babies, and watches people suffer, and gets angry. I don't agree with him or like it. I think it's evil, and I think what he does is evil 99% of the time. But he still exists. I won't do everything I think he wants, but still ...." are throwing him under the bus as well.

So car designers are lazy and have a lack of imagination?

Do you find the universe boring and unoriginal?

I don't understand this argument either .... which basically says, that if god is anything like us then he/she/it sucks. Why? Do we suck? Because in the same breath, the atheist will usually talk about how awe inspiring the universe is and how amazing physics are and how fascinating creatures are .... but if god is anything like us, then he must suck. I don't get that. It's contradictory reasoning to dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

If there is no evidence for intelligent design, then fine. But to make offensive remarks and put downs about a non existent entity ... the believers have therefore just as much right to defend the same non-existent entity against remarks like that.

"The tea cup doesn't exist."

"Yes it does".

"No it doesn't exist. And it's stupid."

Really?

[/win]

To add:

How can one say that God is unoriginal, or lazy, or unthoughtful, if he allowed a way to have so many animals with such similar design look....completely different. Like the stripes on tiger fur, vs a relatively hairless human being?

And take humans, for example. There are 6-7 billion of us on this planet at the moment. We all look completely different, with different facial structures, DNA, and fingerprints. Hell, even identical twins have different DNA and fingerprints. And they even LOOK different most of the time. I have an identical twin brother, and we got older, people are able to tell us apart much easier.

And lions. Every single individual lion has a slightly different smell to it. This is so lion cubs could identify their mothers for miles away.

I dunno. I just think for such discerning scientific atheists to just totally discount the possibility for a God, god, gods, or "Intelligent Designer...." what have you....is a bit on the foolish side. It's kind of like back in the day, when people scoffed at the idea that the earth was round. They thought it impossible. (Unbelievably, there are apparently people still around in the year 2011 who actually believe it is flat!)

But yeah. The argument that atheists can "oohh" and "ahh" over the wonders of the universe, and the many and varied species on the one hand, but then ask the question "why is God so unoriginal, if he exists?" on the other, is quite a win argument.

 

[randman]

I don't generally like wiki but just as starting point to talk about what are related theories of fine-tuning.

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[25] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Obviously a brief quote doesn't explain it and I am not sure I know this particular theory but thought it's worth fine-tuning can mean a little more than some that dismiss realize.

Note the comment on selecting "past histories."

 

[Nihilianth]

No I didn't that's your strawman. I asked you to substantiate your claim. You continue to evade doing so.

You cannot prove nonexistence. Therefore, there is no way for him to prove that humans are not on the sun. Because they are not.

There, I substantiated for him, and I do believe in God.

 

[Cavemonster]

"The tea cup doesn't exist."

"Yes it does".

"No it doesn't exist. And it's stupid."

Really?

No, it's a bit more like this:

P1: I've got a paperweight

P2: Oh really? Can I see it?

P1: No, it's invisible.

P2: Ah, so it holds your papers down, but can't be seen? Can you show me how it holds the papers down? Can I feel it?

P1: You can't feel it, and it doesn't hold my papers down. The papers behave exactly as they would if there were no paperweight.

P2: So you can't look at it, and it doesn't hold your papers in place. As far as I can tell, you don't actually have a paperweight, but if you did have one with those qualities, it would be pretty crappy as a paperweight.

 

[Nihilianth]

No, but I think that the number of different designs of life forms are often very similar to each other. This is exactly what you'd expect if they descended from a common ancestor and not what you'd expect if they were created by a being of infinite ability, intelligence and imagination who was also creating the environment in which the life forms had to survive.

But within the "confines" of DNA the only form of "life messenger," you do have an infinite number of ways that a human face is constructed, and ultimately looks like. You have an infinite fingerprint patters. You have an infinite eyeball patterns. And that is just humans.

With DNA, there are literally an infinite ways that life forms can take shape. From cyanobacteria, to fishes and jellyfishes, to trees and shrubery D), to humans.

The argument was that mammals all have the same basic design. Later arguments along this line is that "why is life constricted to just DNA, then?"

Well, DNA takes many times more forms and basic design structures than just mammals. And only using DNA and carbon for constructing all the varied forms of life, with each individual looking somehow slightly different than the next within each species, is pretty darn imaginable, if you ask me.

 

[randman]

Well there wouldn't have been death until life appeared, I'll grant you. But you don't need the bible to tell you that.

It would mean all of space time up to the point life appeared wouldn't have death in it.

BTW, I'm assuming that by 'death' you mean the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism ?

There wouldn't be life.


Who says so, and based on what? (quote the biblical passage if you must)

I guess you can't have mass extinction events without lots of species, i.e. life...

That sounds more like amateur Science-Fantasy than a plausible hypothesis. Where's the evidence? how can we test it? what does it predict? how is it useful?

Here's a reference (though a wiki one and so not that reliable) of a non-theist idea of fine-tuning "selecting" "past histories." They seem to think that idea is scientific and so in some sense testable

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[25] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Obviously a brief quote doesn't explain it and I am not sure I know this particular theory but thought it's worth fine-tuning can mean a little more than some that dismiss realize.

Note the comment on selecting "past histories."

 

[Trent Wray]

No, it's a bit more like this:

P1: I've got a paperweight

P2: Oh really? Can I see it?

P1: No, it's invisible.

P2: Ah, so it holds your papers down, but can't be seen? Can you show me how it holds the papers down? Can I feel it?

P1: You can't feel it, and it doesn't hold my papers down. The papers behave exactly as they would if there were no paperweight.

P2: So you can't look at it, and it doesn't hold your papers in place. As far as I can tell, you don't actually have a paperweight, but if you did have one with those qualities, it would be pretty crappy as a paperweight.

Yes this is an excellent analogy and counter, and I see what you're saying .... except that I think it's somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. And if I had chosen something other than the tea cup, perhaps my point would have been clearer, because I was using the Jupiter-tea-cup as a stand in for God ... when tea cups exist and so it forms an image of something that actually exists I could have picked a better analogy.

Going off yours:

I understand why someone would think an invisible paperweight that doesn't hold down papers is crappy lol. But I'm talking about paperweights that actually exist. We all agree paperweights exist (well, some might not ). What I don't get, is if someone thinks paperweights are great inventions, but claims the inventor is uninventive, it doesn't follow. It follows if you look at everything else the inventor has invented and they are "lame" inventions perhaps, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking potentially LOTS of inventions. Not just one or two. The "universe as a whole" or "life as a whole" etc and so forth. Generally, someone views these things collectively when they speak in general terms like "life is amazing and fascinating" or "life is beautiful" or "the universe is an amazing thing that I never tire of trying to understand" etc and so forth. So when someone says, "goddidit" and the response of that person who actually views things that way claims, "well, god is fairly incompetent then" or something of the like, I don't understand that reasoning. It seems it has more to do with how one thinks that god should be like, as opposed to god's limitations given the reality that there is evidence for. So if the evidence of reality is "amazing" .... yet the idea of a creator is "stupid" to a person, that's one thing. But saying that the creator must be stupid, but the creation is amazing ... it still seems a contradiction to me.

And again, this is irregardless of what your view on the existence of a creator is at all. It seems more a matter of distaste at the idea of a creator, or the attributes of the creator. So when people actually use it as "evidence there is no god because god is lazy" yet they believe existence is fine and dandy, it doesn't follow. It's a matter of opinion about a non existent entity ... not further evidence he/she/it doesn't exist.

Using the paperweight analogy, the paperweight exists.

P2: That paperweight is a great idea, who thought of it?
P1: God did. It appeared out of nowhere.
P2: Well, it's possible it came from some process, but there is no God.
P1: No, Goddidit.
P2: Well, if that's the best God can do, he is pretty unimpressive and lazy.

It's unimpressive if your idea of God is a being with unlimited power. But if all god can do is create a paperweight, and you are impressed with that paperweight, why does that make God unimpressive and lazy? Is it because people expect more from a God? See what I'm saying? The only thing it's evidence of, is expecting "god" to be something "god" isn't. If you change your parameters on what God is and can do, then you wouldn't say he/she/it is lazy or unimpressive, if you were impressed with the paperweight lol

And so the atheist or non-believer will say,"well .... there is no god so it is a moot point." And if that's the case, then it further seems lunacy to me to argue and try to provide evidence claiming a non existent entity has an attribute lol. We're discussing non existent attributes of non existent things for which there is no evidence for (I'm not naming names) right?

So how is a non-existent attribute of a non-existent thing, evidence? If a skeptic wants to argue about non-existent attributes of a non-existent thing, then the believer has every "right" to bring the same type of "evidence" into the conversation.

If an atheist (a generic one for example) thinks that living things are amazing and a wonder to behold, etc ..... but finds an omnipotent god who is supposedly capable of creating the universe lacking in originality and effort in regards to everything else, I can see the thought behind the theory. But if someone shows up and says, "well, I believe in a god who only created living things and nothing else. That god is currently in the process of getting more ability to "fix" everything that's wrong in the world. Some prophets said so," etc and so forth .... then would that atheist then say that although they didn't believe in the existence of that god, the god that person believed in showed originality and effort and was theoretically capable of wonders to behold?

Sorry for being overly redundant ... but I'm trying to give multiple examples to explain the point ...

 

[Trent Wray]

[/win]

To add:

How can one say that God is unoriginal, or lazy, or unthoughtful, if he allowed a way to have so many animals with such similar design look....completely different. Like the stripes on tiger fur, vs a relatively hairless human being?

And take humans, for example. There are 6-7 billion of us on this planet at the moment. We all look completely different, with different facial structures, DNA, and fingerprints. Hell, even identical twins have different DNA and fingerprints. And they even LOOK different most of the time. I have an identical twin brother, and we got older, people are able to tell us apart much easier.

And lions. Every single individual lion has a slightly different smell to it. This is so lion cubs could identify their mothers for miles away.

I dunno. I just think for such discerning scientific atheists to just totally discount the possibility for a God, god, gods, or "Intelligent Designer...." what have you....is a bit on the foolish side. It's kind of like back in the day, when people scoffed at the idea that the earth was round. They thought it impossible. (Unbelievably, there are apparently people still around in the year 2011 who actually believe it is flat!)

But yeah. The argument that atheists can "oohh" and "ahh" over the wonders of the universe, and the many and varied species on the one hand, but then ask the question "why is God so unoriginal, if he exists?" on the other, is quite a win argument.

Well ... to be fair ......

I'm not even really discussing whether god exists or not lol. I'm trying to discuss some: of the logic behind the views of what "god's ability is" theoretically, a skeptic's seeming use of "subjective evidence" to draw conclusions and use them as evidence in an objective setting, and getting to the root of a critical thinkers seemingly contradictory POV in general.

I'm actually not challenging anyone on whether god exists or not. I'd like to understand a certain type of mindset, that's all

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes this is an excellent analogy and counter, and I see what you're saying .... except that I think it's somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. And if I had chosen something other than the tea cup, perhaps my point would have been clearer, because I was using the Jupiter-tea-cup as a stand in for God ... when tea cups exist and so it forms an image of something that actually exists I could have picked a better analogy.

Going off yours:

I understand why someone would think an invisible paperweight that doesn't hold down papers is crappy lol. But I'm talking about paperweights that actually exist. We all agree paperweights exist (well, some might not ). What I don't get, is if someone thinks paperweights are great inventions, but claims the inventor is uninventive, it doesn't follow. It follows if you look at everything else the inventor has invented and they are "lame" inventions perhaps, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking potentially LOTS of inventions. Not just one or two. The "universe as a whole" or "life as a whole" etc and so forth. Generally, someone views these things collectively when they speak in general terms like "life is amazing and fascinating" or "life is beautiful" or "the universe is an amazing thing that I never tire of trying to understand" etc and so forth. So when someone says, "goddidit" and the response of that person who actually views things that way claims, "well, god is fairly incompetent then" or something of the like, I don't understand that reasoning. It seems it has more to do with how one thinks that god should be like, as opposed to god's limitations given the reality that there is evidence for. So if the evidence of reality is "amazing" .... yet the idea of a creator is "stupid" to a person, that's one thing. But saying that the creator must be stupid, but the creation is amazing ... it still seems a contradiction to me.

And again, this is irregardless of what your view on the existence of a creator is at all. It seems more a matter of distaste at the idea of a creator, or the attributes of the creator. So when people actually use it as "evidence there is no god because god is lazy" yet they believe existence is fine and dandy, it doesn't follow. It's a matter of opinion about a non existent entity ... not further evidence he/she/it doesn't exist.

Using the paperweight analogy, the paperweight exists.

P2: That paperweight is a great idea, who thought of it?
P1: God did. It appeared out of nowhere.
P2: Well, it's possible it came from some process, but there is no God.
P1: No, Goddidit.
P2: Well, if that's the best God can do, he is pretty unimpressive and lazy.

It's unimpressive if your idea of God is a being with unlimited power. But if all god can do is create a paperweight, and you are impressed with that paperweight, why does that make God unimpressive and lazy? Is it because people expect more from a God? See what I'm saying? The only thing it's evidence of, is expecting "god" to be something "god" isn't. If you change your parameters on what God is and can do, then you wouldn't say he/she/it is lazy or unimpressive, if you were impressed with the paperweight lol

And so the atheist or non-believer will say,"well .... there is no god so it is a moot point." And if that's the case, then it further seems lunacy to me to argue and try to provide evidence claiming a non existent entity has an attribute lol. We're discussing non existent attributes of non existent things for which there is no evidence for (I'm not naming names) right?

So how is a non-existent attribute of a non-existent thing, evidence? If a skeptic wants to argue about non-existent attributes of a non-existent thing, then the believer has every "right" to bring the same type of "evidence" into the conversation.

If an atheist (a generic one for example) thinks that living things are amazing and a wonder to behold, etc ..... but finds an omnipotent god who is supposedly capable of creating the universe lacking in originality and effort in regards to everything else, I can see the thought behind the theory. But if someone shows up and says, "well, I believe in a god who only created living things and nothing else. That god is currently in the process of getting more ability to "fix" everything that's wrong in the world. Some prophets said so," etc and so forth .... then would that atheist then say that although they didn't believe in the existence of that god, the god that person believed in showed originality and effort and was theoretically capable of wonders to behold?

Sorry for being overly redundant ... but I'm trying to give multiple examples to explain the point ...

I'd like to go back to your teacup if you don't mind.

Imagine I enter the art room at the local elementary school and there's my 7 year old son, with slay all over his hands, and there on the table in front of him is a just-completed ceramic teacup. It's fairly round and smooth, a very good job for such a young craftsman.

"Hey, great job on that teacup son!"

Suddenly a passerby pipes up.

"Oh, your son didn't make that. A crack design team of the world's greatest professional ceramicists dropped by, and over the course of a decade, with a budget of millions of dollars, designed and crafted that teacup."

"Really? Because it looks pretty much exactly like a slightly better version of all the teacups I've seen him make. See, there's a shelf behind you with a bunch of his old ones, all getting better step by step as he practiced. It has tiny fingerprints in it exactly the size of his fingers. Why do you think a million dollar design team made it?"

"Well, I read about it in a book. Besides, you said yourself the cup was pretty good, how else could it have been made?"

"Honestly, everything points to my son making it. It's a great job for an eight year old, but you would imagine a million dollar design team would have made it smoother, and without the thumb prints or that little crack there."




Trent,
What you need to understand is that the rhetorical device you're talking about isn't an actual criticism of any god. It is a way of saying that life and the universe are inconsistent with the perfect creation of an omnipotent god especially concerned with humans, just as the slightly lumpy teacup is inconsistent with a million dollar design team.

The universe, and life as we know it is very wonderful indeed, but many aspects of it would be ridiculous choices for an intelligent and all powerful designer. The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, for example.

Of course, this particular objection, as you point out, is only applicable to an omnipotent designer. As you say, there is at least one fewer logical contradiction if you posit, in the case of our teacup, some guy named Tony instead of a million dollar ceramics design team. But there's neither evidence for, nor need for a Tony. All the evidence still points to the kid making the teacup.

 

[Trent Wray]

I'd like to go back to your teacup if you don't mind.

Imagine I enter the art room at the local elementary school and there's my 7 year old son, with slay all over his hands, and there on the table in front of him is a just-completed ceramic teacup. It's fairly round and smooth, a very good job for such a young craftsman.

"Hey, great job on that teacup son!"

Suddenly a passerby pipes up.

"Oh, your son didn't make that. A crack design team of the world's greatest professional ceramicists dropped by, and over the course of a decade, with a budget of millions of dollars, designed and crafted that teacup."

"Really? Because it looks pretty much exactly like a slightly better version of all the teacups I've seen him make. See, there's a shelf behind you with a bunch of his old ones, all getting better step by step as he practiced. It has tiny fingerprints in it exactly the size of his fingers. Why do you think a million dollar design team made it?"

"Well, I read about it in a book. Besides, you said yourself the cup was pretty good, how else could it have been made?"

"Honestly, everything points to my son making it. It's a great job for an eight year old, but you would imagine a million dollar design team would have made it smoother, and without the thumb prints or that little crack there."




Trent,
What you need to understand is that the rhetorical device you're talking about isn't an actual criticism of any god. It is a way of saying that life and the universe are inconsistent with the perfect creation of an omnipotent god especially concerned with humans, just as the slightly lumpy teacup is inconsistent with a million dollar design team.

The universe, and life as we know it is very wonderful indeed, but many aspects of it would be ridiculous choices for an intelligent and all powerful designer. The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, for example.

Of course, this particular objection, as you point out, is only applicable to an omnipotent designer. As you say, there is at least one fewer logical contradiction if you posit, in the case of our teacup, some guy named Tony instead of a million dollar ceramics design team. But there's neither evidence for, nor need for a Tony. All the evidence still points to the kid making the teacup.

Yes yes an even better analogy.

I see exactly what you're saying. However, the objection you point out is the key (as well as what some might define as "perfect" unfortunately). I basically agree with everything you've said, and the way you say it ... until we get to the part that is applicable to a non-omnipotent designer.

One of the main purpose of the OP was that the intelligent design argument points to a non-omnipotent god. So, going with that, if God was omnipotent, then some point out that he is a bastard, lazy, unoriginal, etc and so forth. If god is limited and not omnipotent, then it would follow that whatever a person thought was amazing/wonderful/etc would point to that god being creative, imaginative, etc. .... in the same way that the kid making the teacup did a great job.

If god's only responsibility was the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, then by some's standards he f'd up. However if "overall" the limited god did a "good job" creating life and a wonderful universe (limited by whatever resources limited him, like say, the laws of classical and quantum physics) ... then it would still follow, according to the person's opinion, that god did a bang up job.

Now, I understand perfectly well your point about Tony and his million dollar team producing only a tea cup that could pass for a child's cup and that being far under par for someone with those resources. I would think the same thing ... but not everyone would think this. Whoever paid 40,000$ for Justin Bieber's hair thought it was far more valuable than I ever would. One of Jackson Pollock's paintings has a $140 million dollar pricetag, and it looks like something my dog could produce accidentally. George W. Bush is thought by some to be an excellent President .

The point, is that when gauging something subjectively, what one person thinks shows a lack of creativity, for example, another will think shows the opposite. Some may find sufferring and death "a beautiful part of life and one they are sure god has a purpose in." and thus his omnipotence stands. Others have a view of god where he is not the author of any of those elements of life. To use these opinions of what would be ridiculous or not as evidence makes sense ... so long as subjective opinions about subjective concepts count as evidence. Which seems a waste of time for the atheist skeptic who doesn't believe there is an intelligent designer in the first place. In such a case, it would make just as much sense for the atheist to claim what would pass as an intelligent designer worthy of praise and admiration.

In the case of the tea cup ... the kid for example. Except that a kid is real, and Tony can only be speculated about. Because if you engage the passerby about what a waste of million dollars Tony and his team spent had he created the tea cup and what the definition of "a perfect use of a million dollars" would be, she could say, "it wasn't a waste. The cup is wonderful. It's simplicity is symbollic" and thus you've proven nothing because you two are essentially now in agreement about the teacup .... and the believer sees you claiming the teacup is wonderful, reinforcing her notion that it was made by a wonderful being. If you then claim then that Tony is a wasteful amateur, then she is going to be offended. If you then claim that the cup itself is flawed, you're not doing any favors to the kid who made it .... so why not just stick with what you know to be truth and don't go beyond the "evidence"? You think the teacup is grand, all evidence points to the kid making it. There is no reason to get into a debate with the woman about whether or not Tony is wasteful or unoriginal or mediocre, because Tony doesn't exist. It is going down a pointless rabbit hole. And if you want to discuss it theoretically, then it would actually make sense that you come up with the idea that Tony would be well received by you and your peers for his creation, if Tony turned out to be a kid giving the tea cup his first go around in art class.

 

[Cavemonster]

Because if you engage the passerby about what a waste of million dollars Tony and his team spent had he created the tea cup and what the definition of "a perfect use of a million dollars" would be, she could say, "it wasn't a waste. The cup is wonderful. It's simplicity is symbollic" and thus you've proven nothing because you two are essentially now in agreement about the teacup .... and the believer sees you claiming the teacup is wonderful, reinforcing her notion that it was made by a wonderful being. If you then claim then that Tony is a wasteful amateur, then she is going to be offended. If you then claim that the cup itself is flawed, you're not doing any favors to the kid who made it .... so why not just stick with what you know to be truth and don't go beyond the "evidence"? You think the teacup is grand, all evidence points to the kid making it. There is no reason to get into a debate with the woman about whether or not Tony is wasteful or unoriginal or mediocre, because Tony doesn't exist.

When the woman starts arguing about how the perfection of the teacup is proof that a million dollar design team made it, she has put that on the table, and it is only reasonable to address that as an argument.

The whole "Argument from design" is essentially saying:

"Look at this great teacup! It's so perfect, it must have been made by a million dollar design team"

It is perfectly legitimate then, to address those aspects of the cup which are inconsistent with a great design team. The value of Justin Beiber's hair is sentimental. The value of Pollock is aesthetic (and speculative in an art market). The value of engineering is practical, and far more easy to judge. If the handle of our teacup is secured in such a way that it will break off after a small amount of typical teacup use, then it would be hard to argue that it is a perfect design. Either the alleged million dollar team is incompetent, or they don't exist.

When atheists make statements about the competence of the designer, think of it as outlining the few broad hypotheses that explain the imperfect "designs". We're stating that a perfect designer is really easily falsified, leaving only imperfection or non-existence. Since so many theists count perfection as an essential quality of their god, this is more or less a proof of non-existence.

As you mention, an non-omnipotent god is much harder to disprove, just like an invisible pink unicorn, essentially because both are unfalsifiable.

Most arguments about creation in these parts are with Abrahamic believers, so addressing an omni god is pretty reasonable.

 

[llwyd]

I have to say that if there is an intelligent designer, he/she/it really must be obsessed about scatology. I mean who would voluntarily design flatulence otherwise? Or our mindbogglingly elegant act of defecation - what would the point be of that, considering the all imaginable alternatives? With limitless resources and capabilities one could surely easily design a much more satisfactory, less leaky intelligent being... I like the sex part though, that was good, interesting thinking. Solid work. I'm sure the designer had lots of fun with female orgasm and might have been already bit bored when it came to the male equivalent. Luckily for the female of the species the designer did not make human penises spiky like with some feline species (and what was the bright idea with that, one wonders).

 

[Trent Wray]

When the woman starts arguing about how the perfection of the teacup is proof that a million dollar design team made it, she has put that on the table, and it is only reasonable to address that as an argument.

The whole "Argument from design" is essentially saying:

"Look at this great teacup! It's so perfect, it must have been made by a million dollar design team"

It is perfectly legitimate then, to address those aspects of the cup which are inconsistent with a great design team. The value of Justin Beiber's hair is sentimental. The value of Pollock is aesthetic (and speculative in an art market). The value of engineering is practical, and far more easy to judge. If the handle of our teacup is secured in such a way that it will break off after a small amount of typical teacup use, then it would be hard to argue that it is a perfect design. Either the alleged million dollar team is incompetent, or they don't exist.

When atheists make statements about the competence of the designer, think of it as outlining the few broad hypotheses that explain the imperfect "designs". We're stating that a perfect designer is really easily falsified, leaving only imperfection or non-existence. Since so many theists count perfection as an essential quality of their god, this is more or less a proof of non-existence.

As you mention, an non-omnipotent god is much harder to disprove, just like an invisible pink unicorn, essentially because both are unfalsifiable.

Most arguments about creation in these parts are with Abrahamic believers, so addressing an omni god is pretty reasonable.

Or the alleged million dollar team created the handle to break that way on purpose, as a clue to a bigger mystery they wanted you to solve, etc and so forth (i.e. the TV show Lost or Fringe for example, JJ Abrams prides himself on "nothing by accident" apparently).

I agree with you ... so long as subjective opinions are allowed to be considered evidence. If they are, then both sides can claim whatever they want to be considered "perfect" and use whatever rationale or deus ex machina they wish to explain away why an ominpotent god would or would not create "flaws".

This would relate to Abrahamic gods which, as you say and I know, are generally considered perfect and omnipotent. But it would also relate to any notion of any god. And when an atheist is "countering" with a weaker, more inept looking god ... it's not viewed as evidence that a god doesn't exist. It's viewed as a weaker, more inept looking god, as well as you having an issue with their god. Which won't wash, if they can explain to you how a perfect omnipotent god can create the teacup which you find so beautiful. When you don't agree with their reasoning, esp. if you both find the teacup beautiful, then why wouldn't they defend their point? It's not based on evidence ... and neither is yours. Because your opinion about what is practical and "perfect" will be different than theirs.

It is reasonable to address their argument on their terms, so long as you are understanding that you aren't arguing from evidence and that two people discussing their personal tastes and opinions about something is reasonable. You are discussing semantics and opinions. Arguing from evidence, you would stick with evidence only .... not concepts of "good" or "perfect" or "more useful" etc and so forth. In this conversation specifically, there is either an intelligent designer or there isn't, and we can either prove one of those statements or we can't. Trying to prove it based on what "perfect" may or may not mean to each one of us isn't objective. Discussing these types of things is what people do however .... but believers all gathering to one side and claiming that god is good god is great he's made everything wonderful and atheists saying that if there is a god, then they want their god to fix the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe and use his resources better isn't evidence. Neither one is. They are personal preferences of what each want to see their god do before they'll grant that god the title of "perfect" or "omnipotent".

They are only evidence of people's opinions. So, if you still don't agree with this line of thinking ... we're probably going to just disagree. I'm fairly certain I see your point, I just think it ultimately boils down to the believers right to question the atheist about their opinion of "perfect" or "wonderful" for example, as it is the atheist's right to question the believer's. But ultimately, the skeptic should know there is no concrete proof of what "perfect" is. And by some people's definition, a perfect god created what some might view as "flawed" things. So when an atheist claims the universe is beautiful, save for a few flaws here or there .... and some unoriginality ... those believers have accounted for this by adjusting their definition of perfect and "flaw" even, allowing for them with an omnipotent god. And so the atheist is contradicting themselves by even arguing against the omnipotence of god ... because by certain definitions such a god could still choose to use his power in ways we don't agree with. And again ... that's why I don't even see arguing the existence of a non-existent entity for which there is no evidence, using subjective based perspectives as the basis lol. A skeptic can claim they are speaking at the level of the believer ... but realistically, it appears they aren't discussing the existence of god, they are discussing their personal opinions about a job that god has done and whether or not he should have done it better given his apparent "power". In that case, all subjective evidence from the believer should be examined as relevant, because the skeptic/atheist's subjective opinions are now relevant as well. It doesn't follow ....

But as I said, I see your point. I just disagree with the ultimate basis of why one side's subjective opinions are valid, whilst another side's subjective opinions are not. Moving the goal posts (i.e. perspectives on engineering are easier to judge, when arguably some of our engineering is far more destructive than it is useful for example) "isn't fair" to the believer either. Not if a skeptic's subjective opinion is going to have weight as evidence or even as a building block for evidence. Is the goal to find out whether or not an intelligent designer exists, or is the goal to find out who likes his/her/its choices or not?

 

[Cavemonster]

believers all gathering to one side and claiming that god is good god is great he's made everything wonderful and atheists saying that if there is a god, then they want their god to fix the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe and use his resources better isn't evidence.

I fear you're missing something very essential about how an argument, and particularly this argument is constructed.

The argument against design is an argument from evidence.

Creationists make the argument from design. Let me put this in dialogue form to clarify.

"I know a million dollar design team made this teacup because it is so self evidently perfectly engineered."

"But this handle is really weak, how is that perfect?"

"It may have some mysterious purpose!"

"What purpose?"

"I don't know, but some great purpose is possible that we don't understand!"

"That may be possible, but if it isn't apparent to us now, then your first statement that this perfection is self evident is false."


Trent,
Based on our current knowledge, biology is imperfect, the world is imperfect. This is where the evidence comes in. We can point to the that giraffe nerve, the human eye design, the risk of death by childbirth before modern medicine, all evidence that these "designs" are inefficient and imperfect.

That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of engineering. Now where opinion comes in, you could say that perhaps these imperfections are part of a greater plan or something of the sort, but then you must abandon the original premise that design is self evident.

A nerve having a huge loop with no apparent purpose isn't a subjective opinion. It is inefficient engineering to all appearances. It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of evidence. You cannot say that an inefficient layout appears to be perfect design.

 

[westprog]

Then what you're describing isn't the same thing as what people who argue for "Intelligent Design" are describing.

The term "intelligent design" doesn't just mean that something about the universe looks as if it were a non-random occurence. It's a theory about how different species came about - in particular, that species did not evolve due to natural selection, but were created by some external agency. It is quite specific, and in fact was designed to be limited in order that it could allow religious beliefs to be taught in science classes.

It's quite a different thing from the various forms of the anthropic principle. That people with an agenda or are perhaps honestly confused continue to confuse the issue just means that the distinction needs to be constantly reiterated. ID has been thoroughly refuted. The concept of an Intelligent Designer has not.

 

[westprog]

Then what you're describing isn't the same thing as what people who argue for "Intelligent Design" are describing.

The term "intelligent design" doesn't just mean that something about the universe looks as if it were a non-random occurence. It's a theory about how different species came about - in particular, that species did not evolve due to natural selection, but were created by some external agency. It is quite specific, and in fact was designed to be limited in order that it could allow religious beliefs to be taught in science classes.

It's quite a different thing from the various forms of the anthropic principle. That people with an agenda or are perhaps honestly confused continue to confuse the issue just means that the distinction needs to be constantly reiterated. ID has been thoroughly refuted. The concept of an Intelligent Designer has not.

 

[randman]

westprog, just a small correction. Intelligent Design is not just a biological theory. There are ID theories in physics and have been for a long time.

 

[Mister Agenda]

It doesn't sound like you really understand it or at least not some versions of fine-tuning.

Perhaps you don't understand what it really means to be a scientific theory? Fine tuning in the sense that our universe is too improbable to have come about naturally is a hypothesis at best. Too many of its premises are based on unknowns. Theoretical physicists tend to throw the word 'theory' around very loosely, for some reason.

Shallow thinking on your part. Get back to me when you want to take the subject seriously on that point.

Should I in future want to take the subject more seriously than I am now, I doubt your name will come to mind.

Your post can be my example. You interjected your assumption on what God should be like in a discussion on fine tuning or evolution. Take this.

I started this discussion explicitly about what sorts of God concepts are compatible with fine tuning or evolution. I didn't interject it into a discussion, it is the discussion. You don't even seem to know what thread you're in. I'm not assuming what God must be like. I'm noting that a universe compatible with life is compatible with no God or a non-omnipotent First Cause. An omnipotent God is compatible with any universe, but a universe hospitable to life least requires omnipotence on the part of any designer or cause.

Deceptive? So God is answerable to you now. He's trying to deceive you if special creation is true? This is an idiotic and childish reasoning. If you don't believe in special creation, Ok, but to interject something about how because it seems to you one way, God really was thinking of mankind in the past 100 years and set it up that way to deceive this generation?

If I make an observation about someone, it doesn't mean they are answerable to me, merely that I am capable of drawing conclusions based on their actions. If I'm not allowed to do that, you aren't either, which will severely limit what you can claim about God. For instance, are you claiming that God didn't have this generation of humans in mind when he created life? That he didn't know that creating life so it all looks related would make us think it is related? If so, I can conclude from that, that it isn't the Abrahamic God as described in the Bible that you believe in anyway. Besides, OT writers didn't have a problem with the idea that God would deceive even a prophet.

I suppose it was God's fault men thought the world was flat, and by golly He deceived us. He must not be there because no God would make us think the world was flat by things looking flat to us at the time.

If you believe Genesis is a good source for information on biology, why don't you think it is a good source for geography? The God of Genesis seems to be laboring under the impression the earth is flat. If he knew otherwise, and let his ghostwriters get it wrong, that does seem deceptive now that you bring it up.

Can't you see that as just fallacious logic and interjecting your own theology into a science discussion?

I don't have a theology. The discussion was about God and fine tuning from the first post. I should know. And it's just a fact that even if there is a God, and that God is omnipotent, he doesn't seem to have done anything regarding the origin of the universe or life that we know would be impossible for us to eventually do in a lab. That is, he doesn't seem to have done anything that requires omnipotence to explain, or even Star Trek-level technology. If, instead of wondering how the universe is so well suited for us, we were wondering why our atoms don't rip apart because the universe is so poorly suited for us; or why all the other species have a body chemistry radically different from ours, THOSE would be a sign we might be dealing with an omnipotent being, rather than with one that merely claims to be, or that is fictional.

Once more, I'm not complaining that an omnipotent God couldn't have been responsible for the universe, and life. I'm pointing out that an omnipotent God isn't needed to explain this particular universe, and life.

 

[Trent Wray]

I fear you're missing something very essential about how an argument, and particularly this argument is constructed.

The argument against design is an argument from evidence.

Creationists make the argument from design. Let me put this in dialogue form to clarify.

"I know a million dollar design team made this teacup because it is so self evidently perfectly engineered."

"But this handle is really weak, how is that perfect?"

"It may have some mysterious purpose!"

"What purpose?"

"I don't know, but some great purpose is possible that we don't understand!"

"That may be possible, but if it isn't apparent to us now, then your first statement that this perfection is self evident is false."


Trent,
Based on our current knowledge, biology is imperfect, the world is imperfect. This is where the evidence comes in. We can point to the that giraffe nerve, the human eye design, the risk of death by childbirth before modern medicine, all evidence that these "designs" are inefficient and imperfect.

That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of engineering. Now where opinion comes in, you could say that perhaps these imperfections are part of a greater plan or something of the sort, but then you must abandon the original premise that design is self evident.

A nerve having a huge loop with no apparent purpose isn't a subjective opinion. It is inefficient engineering to all appearances. It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of evidence. You cannot say that an inefficient layout appears to be perfect design.

Ultimately, and this is the "bottom line" .... I'm going to disagree because of the definitions of "perfect" and "imperfect". I don't think we can define perfect or imperfect factually and objectively, so arguing on the assumption that we can know concretely what is perfect or imperfect is arguing on non-evidence imo. Those terms have too much subjective connotation attached to them ... similar to the term "faith".

In fact, I'll post a thread to get a consensus maybe ... perhaps it will show some interesting responses. Or perhaps it won't lol.

Even if I personally made a teacup, and the handle was flawed accidentally and NOT by my design, I could say, "this teacup is imperfect. I did not design it to operate that way," yet someone else could come along and say, "no ... but it's perfect in my eyes just the way it is," etc and so forth.

The evidence shows there is a teacup. The evidence shows the handle has broken off. I designed the teacup. Whether that is good, bad, perfect, imperfect .... are subjective qualities in the eye of the beholder so to speak. They are evidence of nothing more than intent and opinion: not existence. They may allude to a quality of the entity, but they are not concrete evidence of it. My neighbor killed an intruder. The evidence shows he's either going to go to jail for murder, or be acquitted on self defense. The evidence is what it is .... as to the intent, it can only allude to it ultimately. Even an overwhelming amount of evidence can only point to certain aspects of intent, but never reveal the "psyche" or ultimate foundational reasoning behind why my neighbor killed the intruder. So even if "god" showed up on the scene and said, "I designed everything that is, just the way it is ... retina's and death and all," we would still have our personal opinions about what is perfect or imperfect.

I still don't see those opinions as being evidence for an intelligent designer or not. Either something was created by design or it wasn't, regardless of whether it's broken or not, perfect or imperfect in the eyes of the witness.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Might be arguments about a particular kind of designer. Some designers are more plausible than others. I don't find alien visitors starting life on earth to be very plausible, but some ideas for designers are less plausible than that.