Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[westprog]

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.

That may be so, but when people refer to "Intelligent Design" without qualification, then it's theories on the origin of species that they refer to.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well then a discussion with me about it really wouldn't apply to you then would it?

Blimey, I hate it when it gets into the "arguing about arguing" bit, but you've described a group of people twice in this thread. Once by describing the views of said group and then saying that they would say what you quoted me as saying. I fit into this group. You've also described that group by describing the same views, and then saying that they would say a straw man version of what you quoted me as saying. This group is the one that I'm not convinced actually exists, and which there certainly is no evidence for any member of this group posting in this thread.

You're saying it as if you're describing the same group in the same way, but you're not. One group has an opinion that is demonstrably actually their opinion. The other has an opinion which is a straw man you've invented. That's not the same thing.

I understand the way some JREF'ers "feed" by running arguments into the ground with each other in some sort of competition. I'm not one of those who participates in those types of competitions. If neither one of us is learning, or laughing, or benefiting somehow ... I see no point in talking. That is the point that reached a few posts (and a day) ago ...

And this is just ad hominem. I'm not "feeding" at all. If you don't want to continue discussing this then...stop discussing it. Nobody is forcing you to reply to anything. But it was you who made the assertions you made, and it was my words you used to do so. I have every right to discuss this without being accused of having ulterior motives in doing so.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

[/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?

But they're not so completely different. If you want to look at completely different, then compare a human with a jellyfish.

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.

It's not, though. Yes, there is a wide variety of life, and the universe is amazing and all that jazz. But, if a truly infinitely intelligent and creative being created everything, then why isn't everything as different from everything else as a human is from a jellyfish? Hell, where are the mammals with mouths in their stomachs or with more than 2 eyes?

It is an incredible planet we live on. It just so happens that life on this incredible planet looks exactly like you would expect it to if it came about through natural selection, rather than being created by a being with infinite intelligence and creativity.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

God is limited? Not a position you'll hear most believers espousing.

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.

There's that straw man again...

It seems more a matter of distaste at the idea of a creator, or the attributes of the creator.

...and that one.

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 [...]

Has anybody ever said that? Certainly no follower of the Abrahamic religions I've ever spoken to. Are you thinking of different religions, or have you ever encountered any Abrahamic follower who has said this?

.... 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?

If the best that God could do was to create life then, yes, I'd say good job. But this seems to be a hypothetical God which, crucially, nobody actually believes in. Which does make it rather a moot point.

 

[AvalonXQ]

BYes, there is a wide variety of life, and the universe is amazing and all that jazz. But, if a truly infinitely intelligent and creative being created everything, then why isn't everything as different from everything else as a human is from a jellyfish? Hell, where are the mammals with mouths in their stomachs or with more than 2 eyes?

There are creatures with mouths in their stomachs and with more than 2 eyes. If those things aren't useful for mammals, why should mammals be the creatures that have them?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

(i.e. the TV show Lost or Fringe for example, JJ Abrams prides himself on "nothing by accident" apparently).

Having watched all of Lost, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Abrams is talking out of his backside.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are creatures with mouths in their stomachs and with more than 2 eyes. If those things aren't useful for mammals, why should mammals be the creatures that have them?

Creatures have all sorts of things which aren't useful. I'm a man and I've got nipples. They're fun, sure, but they're not actually useful. Which makes sense if you look at evolution and biology. Created by a perfect God? Not so much. See also the appendix, the coccyx, wisdom teeth, and other examples which I can't think of off the top of my head but am sure exist. Oh, beards.

And I didn't say that mammals should be "the" creatures to have them. That implies that all mammals would have them. This would, again, be the lack of imagination. I'm saying why are all mammals the same basic design? Why isn't there more variety?

 

[Mister Agenda]

That's the essential question with an omnipotent God, why do things in such a constrained way?

 

[KingMerv00]

Have you ever eaten meat and enjoyed it?

I think I know where you are going with this so I will just say "I am not omnipotent" and try my best to head it off at the pass.

 

[Trent Wray]

@ Sceptic Tank:

Yes i hate arguing about arguing too .... so after reading your posts and trying to see your main points again, I'll try to cut to the chase of where I think we are disagreeing. And you are right ... I don't have to respond to anything, but initially you made some posts which I took the liberty of responding too, so I just wanted to "follow through" so to speak. I was the one who poked my head in and "started it" so I figured it was only fair to keep responding instead of evading, and see it through as far as you'd like to. Although like I said, I've basically lost interest in my point ... and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to agree with you and some of the others, nor you all with I ... but anyway, I'm continuing in order to take responsibility for my actions lol

Okay, so I think where we disagree, and then we both start saying "strawman" ... is based on some assumptions we are making about the nature of terms, and the attributes of what an omnipotent, infinitely creative god would or would not be. And yes, I probably "allow" for other interpretations of common Abrahamic ideas, because I wasn't raised with any religious upbringing, and I'm well traveled ... so I'm kind of "neutral" when it comes to some terms that others use, and ideas they have, as I just don't have some of the same biases. Like the word "faith" for example.

So, having said that, I don't think there are concrete objective attributes that can be linked to how an "omnipotent" or "infinitely intelligent and resourceful" creator would do things. If God is all knowing, with unlimited resources and creative ability, then that God can do however he/she/it pleases. Introduce suffering, death, useless body parts, inefficient environments ... whatever. Just because I have a million dollars, doesn't mean that I am going to spend it how everyone thinks I should. I might burn it if I wish. One will call that a waste, another will call that "awesome symbolism man" or what have you. The point, is that how someone feels a god should act (assuming they are omnipotent with unlimited creativity and are "perfect") doesn't mean that their opinion is correct. Perfect, good, etc ... are subjective concepts. And assuming that a millionaire will spend his million bucks, or that a perfect thing will always make logical sense to us, at all times ... doesn't mean that a thing isn't perfect.

It's just as perfect as it is imperfect. Because they are subjective. And an entire group getting together and saying a painting is perfect doesn't make it so either. Someone else might think differently.

A perfect sphere? I'd have to think about that, but it's a mathematical thing so sure, why not. But a perfect person? Or perfect beauty? Or "unlimited intelligence" .... I mean, there are too many subjective aspects to it.

So even if someone were capable of unlimited ability, it doesn't mean they would use it at all times, or in everything they created. There might be some "purpose" behind it as yet to be seen. It's the "god works in mysterious ways." Some accept that notion, other reject it because they don't find it practical.

If you find the idea of an all powerful god inconsistent with what you experience, it's because you think an all powerful god should do things differently. You think creation should have been formed differently. Etc and so forth. You might have many people who feel as you do. But it's not provable. Simple as that. You can prove what was accomplished or not accomplished, what is and what isn't ... but subjective qualities are not provable. They are opinion based.

THIS is why I think that the arguments against ID, based on what a person thinks is intelligent design or not .... are subjective and not evidence based. Either there is evidence that existence was created by a god, or there isn't. To say that a version of a god is inconsistent with how you think a god should/would behave and make choices, has nothing to do with whether or not a god actually exists ... it might elude to one being misunderstood, or under/over estimated, etc and so forth. But whether that god exists or not is based on evidence, not what we think of the job that god is doing. Obama, for example, exists ... there is not a "good Obama" and a "bad Obama". It's just ... Obama. And he is President of the USA. Regardless of whether or not people think he acts wisely or stupidly, intelligently or wastefully .... it's irrelevant. It's relevant to whether or not people will respect him, how they relate to him, whether or not they will tolerate him being in office or re-elect him, whether or not they will support him, etc and so forth. But it has nothing to do with whether or not he exists. He exists, and he is what he is. That's it. All else is personal opinion. For practical purposes, subjective opinions and anecdotes are evidence on some levels ... but for objective purposes, they usually are not. They point to things, but do not "prove" the existence of those things. Evolutionary trends can be mapped and witnessed in the real world. Some will say Goddidit. Whether they represent excellent choices or not, is irrelevant to whether or not a god designed it that way. A god either did or god didn't. Saying, "that groups version of god did not do it because they claim their god is perfect and I don't think existence is perfect" is focussing on someone's strawman and allowing them to misdirect away from the actual focus: either an entity was responsible for it or an entity wasn't, and that's based on evidence.

I think I know where you are going with this so I will just say "I am not omnipotent" and try my best to head it off at the pass.

Fair enough, I have no problem with that

 

[randman]

Fine tuning in the sense that our universe is too improbable to have come about naturally is a hypothesis at best.

That's not the whole of fine-tuning theory, however.

 

[randman]

I think the best, most succinct comment here was by the poster that stated "perfection" and "imperfection" are subjective judgements. That's where the logic is saying there is no God of the Bible or Designer because the world is imperfect breaks down.

 

[Nihilianth]

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

Got ya!

 

[Nihilianth]

But they're not so completely different. If you want to look at completely different, then compare a human with a jellyfish.



It's not, though. Yes, there is a wide variety of life, and the universe is amazing and all that jazz. But, if a truly infinitely intelligent and creative being created everything, then why isn't everything as different from everything else as a human is from a jellyfish? Hell, where are the mammals with mouths in their stomachs or with more than 2 eyes?

It is an incredible planet we live on. It just so happens that life on this incredible planet looks exactly like you would expect it to if it came about through natural selection, rather than being created by a being with infinite intelligence and creativity.

There is an aweful lot of speculation here.

How should anyone know the difference between what life would like with or without God?

How do you know there aren't mammal-like animals somewhere in the universe that has a mouth inside of it's stomach?

And of course, if you look at the sheer variety of plants, animals, bacteria, and all other kingdoms have looked like throughout the history of the planet. It is pretty darn astounding just how many varieties of animals and basic body plans and life forms that have ever existed, and currently exist. no matter whether God exists or not.

 

[dafydd]

Flatulence is a major design fault,if there was a designer.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Okay, so I think where we disagree, and then we both start saying "strawman" ... is based on some assumptions we are making about the nature of terms, and the attributes of what an omnipotent, infinitely creative god would or would not be.

No, I'm saying straw man when you take what I originally quoted and then say that it's saying or implying something that it's not. It's nothing to do with what you may or may not think the attributes of God might be, it's everything to do with what you're saying that my statement about the attributes of God is actually saying.

And yes, I probably "allow" for other interpretations of common Abrahamic ideas, because I wasn't raised with any religious upbringing, and I'm well traveled ... so I'm kind of "neutral" when it comes to some terms that others use, and ideas they have, as I just don't have some of the same biases. Like the word "faith" for example.

You also tend to make statements like this. What you're doing here is assuming what my thoughts are, assuming what biases I've got and why, and then arguing to that, rather than taking the trouble to, say, ask and find out. As it happens this statement of yours is wrong in as much as it relates to me in several ways.

Or, to put it another way, please don't tell me what I think, because you don't seem to be very good at getting it right and you certainly don't have anywhere near enough information to be making the assumptions that you are.

If God is all knowing, with unlimited resources and creative ability, then that God can do however he/she/it pleases.

Yes he can. And if he chose to do so in the way that ends up with the world in which we find ourselves, then the best you can say about him is that he's lazy and suffers from a lack of imagination.

It's the "god works in mysterious ways." Some accept that notion, other reject it because they don't find it practical.

I reject it because it seems like nothing but a post-hoc excuse, rather than an actual bit of reasoning.

But it's not provable. Simple as that.

I've never even implied that it was.

THIS is why I think that the arguments against ID, based on what a person thinks is intelligent design or not .... are subjective and not evidence based.

I've not claimed it as anything other than a subjective argument.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is an aweful lot of speculation here.

How should anyone know the difference between what life would like with or without God?

How do you know there aren't mammal-like animals somewhere in the universe that has a mouth inside of it's stomach?

And of course, if you look at the sheer variety of plants, animals, bacteria, and all other kingdoms have looked like throughout the history of the planet. It is pretty darn astounding just how many varieties of animals and basic body plans and life forms that have ever existed, and currently exist. no matter whether God exists or not.

None of this addresses the points I made.

 

[Cavemonster]

I think the best, most succinct comment here was by the poster that stated "perfection" and "imperfection" are subjective judgements. That's where the logic is saying there is no God of the Bible or Designer because the world is imperfect breaks down.

You, like Trent, fundamentally misunderstand the argument. In fact, you misunderstand it by treating it as an argument in the first place.

When people on this board point out imperfections in "design", it is not an argument for the lack of a designer, it is a counter to the argument that there is perfection and that this perfection is evidence of a designer.

 

[Trent Wray]

I think the best, most succinct comment here was by the poster that stated "perfection" and "imperfection" are subjective judgements. That's where the logic is saying there is no God of the Bible or Designer because the world is imperfect breaks down.

.... HOWEVER ..... we can look at objective evidence and statements claimed to be attributable to the God of the bible, for example, and see if those statements add up.

If, for example, the God of the bible states, "I have created unicorns," then we should find evidence of unicorns. If we do not, then that is evidence that the god of the bible doesn't exist. Or he's a liar perhaps.

What isn't considered "further evidence" ... is whether or not a group thinks unicorns are inefficient by design, or wickedly awesome fantasy creatures.

Flatulence is a major design fault,if there was a designer.

Is this an objective fact which can be used as evidence or a subjective opinion?

No, I'm saying straw man when you take what I originally quoted and then say that it's saying or implying something that it's not. It's nothing to do with what you may or may not think the attributes of God might be, it's everything to do with what you're saying that my statement about the attributes of God is actually saying.

You also tend to make statements like this. What you're doing here is assuming what my thoughts are, assuming what biases I've got and why, and then arguing to that, rather than taking the trouble to, say, ask and find out. As it happens this statement of yours is wrong in as much as it relates to me in several ways.

Or, to put it another way, please don't tell me what I think, because you don't seem to be very good at getting it right and you certainly don't have anywhere near enough information to be making the assumptions that you are.

Yes he can. And if he chose to do so in the way that ends up with the world in which we find ourselves, then the best you can say about him is that he's lazy and suffers from a lack of imagination.

I reject it because it seems like nothing but a post-hoc excuse, rather than an actual bit of reasoning.

I've never even implied that it was.

Again ... we do not communicate well apparently. When I am talking about myself (even using the word "I") or "generic others" (and use the word "others") ... you think I'm talking about you specifically. If I was talking about you specifically I would most likely say "you" and clarify it.

I will now do my best to stop the "no, you're creating a strawman!" cycle ...

I've not claimed it as anything other than a subjective argument.

Enough said. Then we both ultimately agree on this ..... dare I say it? .... so long as you don't claim a subjective argument is direct evidence. Would you (I'm directly asking you specifically) claim this?

You, like Trent, fundamentally misunderstand the argument. In fact, you misunderstand it by treating it as an argument in the first place.

When people on this board point out imperfections in "design", it is not an argument for the lack of a designer, it is a counter to the argument that there is perfection and that this perfection is evidence of a designer.

The part I bolded is the part I did not understand you were implying previously.

I thought you were implying that by arguing against a "perfect" design, this disproved the ideas of those who proposed specific types of "perfect designers" ... and therefore meant there were no designers whatsoever. I was arguing, partially, that not only was "perfect" subjective, but it wasn't evidence for the existence of a designer or lack thereof in it's entirety.

But what I now understand you to be saying, is that it's only a counter to those who claim that existence is perfect, and therefore a perfect designer exists. It's the other side of the subjective coin you are presenting ... whilst realizing it's subjective and not evidence against the existence of ANY designer. Is this close?

 

[Cavemonster]

The part I bolded is the part I did not understand you were implying previously.

I thought you were implying that by arguing against a "perfect" design, this disproved the ideas of those who proposed specific types of "perfect designers" ... and therefore meant there were no designers whatsoever. I was arguing, partially, that not only was "perfect" subjective, but it wasn't evidence for the existence of a designer or lack thereof in it's entirety.

But what I now understand you to be saying, is that it's only a counter to those who claim that existence is perfect, and therefore a perfect designer exists. It's the other side of the subjective coin you are presenting ... whilst realizing it's subjective and not evidence against the existence of ANY designer. Is this close?

Bingo!
Let's see if Randman can get it.