Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[marplots]

Since I've had my ramble about with my pet crocoduck, I'd like to restate the premise of the OP: The order evident in the universe, by way of "fine-tuning" is best understood as an act of divine guidance rather than chance.

If you think God created the universe and has his hand in the mix, then this idea isn't controversial at all - it's what one might expect to find. So there's at least something to discuss. Can it be discussed without devolving into "But you don't understand science!" and "But you don't understand God!" ?

 

[The Norseman]

But seems to be bereft of periods.

Not bereft, just late.

 

[The Norseman]

Since I've had my ramble about with my pet crocoduck, I'd like to restate the premise of the OP: The order evident in the universe, by way of "fine-tuning" is best understood as an act of divine guidance rather than chance.

If you think God created the universe and has his hand in the mix, then this idea isn't controversial at all - it's what one might expect to find. So there's at least something to discuss. Can it be discussed without devolving into "But you don't understand science!" and "But you don't understand God!" ?

What's to discuss in this case?

 

[marplots]

What's to discuss in this case?

Well, to what extent can we say that appearance of design indicates design, and when not? Should the default be purpose or chance? Are ideas about design even worthwhile?

For me, it's a puzzler which reminds me of "random." I can't tell, by inspection, whether something is random or not. So random, like design, seems a pretty slippery property. On the other hand, I use both ideas as if they were solid.

 

[Trakar]

Since I've had my ramble about with my pet crocoduck, I'd like to restate the premise of the OP: The order evident in the universe, by way of "fine-tuning" is best understood as an act of divine guidance rather than chance.

If you think God created the universe and has his hand in the mix, then this idea isn't controversial at all - it's what one might expect to find. So there's at least something to discuss. Can it be discussed without devolving into "But you don't understand science!" and "But you don't understand God!" ?

What is left to discuss?

Seriously, however, I would be more inclined to respond that as life has evolved in the manner it has, with the ability to contemplate such issues, isn't this more a case of a privileged perspective? If the universe were other than it is, we wouldn't be precisely as we are. If the universe were different, either we would be different, or not exist to notice the difference.

ETA - oops, I see I've been Ninja'd in the interim of composition!

 

[jimbob]

What is left to discuss?

Seriously, however, I would be more inclined to respond that as life has evolved in the manner it has, with the ability to contemplate such issues, isn't this more a case of a privileged perspective? If the universe were other than it is, we wouldn't be precisely as we are. If the universe were different, either we would be different, or not exist to notice the difference.

ETA - oops, I see I've been Ninja'd in the interim of composition!

Yes, the weak anthropic principle is sufficient explanation for me

 

[marplots]

What is left to discuss?

Seriously, however, I would be more inclined to respond that as life has evolved in the manner it has, with the ability to contemplate such issues, isn't this more a case of a privileged perspective? If the universe were other than it is, we wouldn't be precisely as we are. If the universe were different, either we would be different, or not exist to notice the difference.

ETA - oops, I see I've been Ninja'd in the interim of composition!

That seems like a long way to get to: "Things that exist, exist."

Which is OK, I guess. It's the position that the details do not shed any light on the process used. I cannot tell, from the fact of my mere existence, whether my folks intended to have me or it was just happenstance.

Where the anthropic principle might be vulnerable though is whether or not us being here is required to ask the question. I know it's needed for us to ask the question, but if we weren't here, wouldn't the question remain? In other words, wouldn't the details matter, regardless of the result?

Here I'm separating out the question, "Was the universe designed" from the question "Was the universe designed with us in mind?"

 

[marplots]

Yes, the weak anthropic principle is sufficient explanation for me

It doesn't feel like an explanation to me. It feels like a dismissal of the question as improper - which is fine too, just not an explanation.

 

[jimbob]

It is an explanation. It is an explanation that there is no need for there to be any deeper metaphysical reason for our ability to observe the universe than that.

 

[The Norseman]

Well, to what extent can we say that appearance of design indicates design, and when not? Should the default be purpose or chance? Are ideas about design even worthwhile?

I think that questions of design were worthwhile and when investigated, have been shown to not be the case. The default need not be either design or chance; one can hypothesize either design or chance and then observations can be made to see what reality is (to the best of our abilities).

For me, it's a puzzler which reminds me of "random." I can't tell, by inspection, whether something is random or not. So random, like design, seems a pretty slippery property. On the other hand, I use both ideas as if they were solid.

To me, some random things can be inspected/observed and others maybe not so much.

 

[marplots]

It is an explanation. It is an explanation that there is no need for there to be any deeper metaphysical reason for our ability to observe the universe than that.

No need for an explanation counts as an explanation? That's like when I told my son, "Oh, but you do get a weekly allowance. It just happens to be zero."

In any case the result is the same. We are here by happenstance to observe what we do, or we are here by intent to do the same. Being here doesn't distinguish between those two.

 

[Leumas]

No need for an explanation counts as an explanation? That's like when I told my son, "Oh, but you do get a weekly allowance. It just happens to be zero."

In any case the result is the same. We are here by happenstance to observe what we do, or we are here by intent to do the same. Being here doesn't distinguish between those two.

It is more like what I used to tell my daughter after an endless session of "why?".... Because .

She once asked why is the sky blue.... I explained the rainbow and refraction and wave nature of light....so she asked why is the rainbow just made out of the 7 colors and not 8 or 6 or 10....so I explained the spectrum and excitation quantum levels of electrons in atoms and the photon nature of light.... so she asked why there were atoms and electrons.... so I finally had to say .... BECAUSE.

Do you think mountains were designed? Do you think the paths of rivers were designed? Do you think the ripples in the sand dunes of the Sahara were designed?

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4026/4376429711_3848a5ecbe_o.gif

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 5. See the list of sites that permit hotlinking. Flickr requires a link back to the original image.

Why should the universe be any more designed than the rocks in the above picture? Or do you think some Designer designed the above rock?

Just because you can envisage the shape of a bunny rabbit in the fluffy cumulous clouds it does not mean that there is such a pattern nor even if in fact there happened to be a real shape there that it was designed.

I cannot see why would anyone even think that there is any apparent (let alone actual) design in the CHAOS that is the universe in the first place to even proceed to ponder over who designed it.

When primitive people used to rattle the bones of a dead animal and then throw them on the ground and proceed to divine significance in the resulting patterns, they really took it seriously that they were being given divine messages.

Nowadays most people are too sophisticated to take seriously the patterns in the entrails of flayed animals, but many still think there are divine messages in the stars and cosmos..... more advanced primitive thinking.... that is all there is to it.... people have swapped the patterns in the dried up bones and entrails of dead animals for the patterns they imaginatively conceive in the cosmos.

 

[tsig]

It doesn't feel like an explanation to me. It feels like a dismissal of the question as improper - which is fine too, just not an explanation.

You are looking for an explanation of why the universe is as it is?

 

[marplots]

Do you think mountains were designed? Do you think the paths of rivers were designed? Do you think the ripples in the sand dunes of the Sahara were designed?

In a sense, yes. By gravity, wind, time. All my designers for those are natural processes. On the other hand, I could just as well construct a list like this: Mona Lisa, Statue of Liberty, my computer - and then ask you if you think those things were designed. I could even claim that a canal was an example of a river that had been designed.

It does no good because we already agree on what the answer is, whether it's design or not. But the question we want to know is whether design can be detected when we don't yet agree. That's what I'm after, not examples we already agree on.

In my view, you can't tell. A sufficiently able designer could make something identical to a natural artifact. Even more so if the designer used natural processes in the manufacture. I could easily design a puddle, indistinguishable from that natural version by simply pouring water out on the ground.

 

[Pup]

In my view, you can't tell. A sufficiently able designer could make something identical to a natural artifact. Even more so if the designer used natural processes in the manufacture. I could easily design a puddle, indistinguishable from that natural version by simply pouring water out on the ground.

That seems to be arguing for a god of the gaps, where one can argue for a hidden god. Wind erosion caused the rock formation. But who caused the wind? There's always a bottom one can reach where the answer is answerless. The same for arguing about whether the universe was fine-tuned.

Those are probably theists' strongest arguments, where things are either not known or can be turned into an endless came of "But who..."

But theists don't usually believe in a hidden god who designed the universe and then stood back, not showing himself except in works that might be designed or might have natural explanations. They usually have a holy book where god communicated directly, or a prophet who has given messages from god, or certain rituals that induce a cause-and-effect relationship with god, either to get what one wants, to prevent god's anger, or to earn a reward later.

Getting away from theists' strongest points to their weakest ones may not be what theists want, but it seems fair enough in a debate.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

It is more like what I used to tell my daughter after an endless session of "why?".... Because .

She once asked why is the sky blue.... I explained the rainbow and refraction and wave nature of light....so she asked why is the rainbow just made out of the 7 colors and not 8 or 6 or 10....so I explained the spectrum and excitation quantum levels of electrons in atoms and the photon nature of light.... so she asked why there were atoms and electrons.... so I finally had to say .... BECAUSE.

Do you think mountains were designed? Do you think the paths of rivers were designed? Do you think the ripples in the sand dunes of the Sahara were designed?

[qimg]http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4026/4376429711_3848a5ecbe_o.gif[/qimg]


Why should the universe be any more designed than the rocks in the above picture? Or do you think some Designer designed the above rock?

Just because you can envisage the shape of a bunny rabbit in the fluffy cumulous clouds it does not mean that there is such a pattern nor even if in fact there happened to be a real shape there that it was designed.

I cannot see why would anyone even think that there is any apparent (let alone actual) design in the CHAOS that is the universe in the first place to even proceed to ponder over who designed it.

When primitive people used to rattle the bones of a dead animal and then throw them on the ground and proceed to divine significance in the resulting patterns, they really took it seriously that they were being given divine messages.

Nowadays most people are too sophisticated to take seriously the patterns in the entrails of flayed animals, but many still think there are divine messages in the stars and cosmos..... more advanced primitive thinking.... that is all there is to it.... people have swapped the patterns in the dried up bones and entrails of dead animals for the patterns they imaginatively conceive in the cosmos.

We are pointing out that evolution has very little evidence. So judging it in a scientific lens tells us that there is little supporting it.

Your science needs to improve

 

[Trakar]

That seems like a long way to get to: "Things that exist, exist."

Which is OK, I guess. It's the position that the details do not shed any light on the process used. I cannot tell, from the fact of my mere existence, whether my folks intended to have me or it was just happenstance.

Where the anthropic principle might be vulnerable though is whether or not us being here is required to ask the question. I know it's needed for us to ask the question, but if we weren't here, wouldn't the question remain? In other words, wouldn't the details matter, regardless of the result?

Here I'm separating out the question, "Was the universe designed" from the question "Was the universe designed with us in mind?"

If the universe was here exactly as it is but sans us, would "design" be an issue? The entire Christian creation mythos is human centric, elimination of the human element pretty much unravels the entire fabric of the foundational story. At the very least a universe sans humanity would be irrelevant to Christian considerations regardless of scientific interest or impact.

 

[Leumas]

We are pointing out that evolution has very little evidence. So judging it in a scientific lens tells us that there is little supporting it.

Your science needs to improve

I think you need to update your prescription!!

 

[tsig]

In a sense, yes. By gravity, wind, time. All my designers for those are natural processes. On the other hand, I could just as well construct a list like this: Mona Lisa, Statue of Liberty, my computer - and then ask you if you think those things were designed. I could even claim that a canal was an example of a river that had been designed.

It does no good because we already agree on what the answer is, whether it's design or not. But the question we want to know is whether design can be detected when we don't yet agree. That's what I'm after, not examples we already agree on.

In my view, you can't tell. A sufficiently able designer could make something identical to a natural artifact. Even more so if the designer used natural processes in the manufacture. I could easily design a puddle, indistinguishable from that natural version by simply pouring water out on the ground.

If the designer uses nothing but natural process how can you tell it's designed?

The puddle you made is a natural puddle.

When I piddled a puddle on the ground was I a designer?

 

[Slowvehicle]

We are pointing out that evolution has very little evidence. So judging it in a scientific lens tells us that there is little supporting it.

Your science needs to improve

1. What do you mean, "we"?

2. Are you simply going to be dishonest enough to ignore, not even read, the reams of evidence you have been offered? Did yoou even bother to visit TalkOrigins.com?

3. Pretending evidence is not there does not give you standing to say "there is little evidence".