Intelligent Design

[MRC_Hans]

If they were not, we would not exist. That much you and I (and others) agree on.

It is not just that the universal constant are in the right range, it is the degree of precision that is remarkable. Your viewpoint on this seems to be that because the birth of the universe from the Big Bang was a one time event and no-one was there to predict the probability of the choice of constant, it is then a moot question. That is not so.

Consider a scientist who has been raised somewhat in isolation so that he has never experienced coin tosses in practice or theory. He is shown a table with a ruler and a coin. Under the middle of the ruler is an eraser. He is told that someone hit one end of the ruler to flip the coin on the other end into the air to land on the table.

He observes the coin standing on its edge. He is then asked to use his knowledge of the laws of physics to work out what the probability is that such an event would happen.

His conclusion is that it is a highly unlikely event. His reasoning is that there are so many variables that have to be "just right".

So here we have one event only to analyze.

The odds of it happening are not 1:1.

The man thinks that the event was "engineered" so that it happened. He has no proof, because they never let him try again.

The odds of this universe existing may be small, even astronomically so (although we don't know, because we don't know what the possible alternatives are), but the odds of us discussing this in an universe where we can exist is 1/1.

Hans

 

[acbytesla]

The odds of this universe existing may be small, even astronomically so (although we don't know, because we don't know what the possible alternatives are), but the odds of us discussing this in an universe where we can exist is 1/1.

Hans

The probability of forming a 5-card royal flush out of 7 cards is 649,731 to 1
The odds of having 4 aces is about 4,000 to 1.

The odds of two players facing off with those two hands is astronomical. And yet
the odds of it happening in the following hand is 1:1 https://youtu.be/YChh5zgVVzQ

 

[PartSkeptic]

After doing a lot more reading on the subject, it seems we have a stand-off.

One chooses the arguments they prefer according to their belief systems, and there is no scientific or logical proof as to which one is correct.

I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice - namely that God exists and that he too is part of an illusion in the mind of a Universal Intelligence.

Since we are dealing with minds that cannot distinguish between "reality" and lucid dreaming or advanced simulations you guys have no way of proving my experiences to be false - or even that the chances are slim.

 

[I Am The Scum]

You realize this is the intelligent design thread, right?

 

[John Jones]

After doing a lot more reading on the subject, [...].

When did you do all that more reading?

 

[Aridas]

After doing a lot more reading on the subject, it seems we have a stand-off.

*raises his eyebrows* As opposed to the rather clear and simple conclusion that the various arguments that you presented were quite invalid for the purposes that you were trying to use them and in many cases entirely invalid? The main part of the discussions dealt with your presented arguments, with little to no attempt to actually argue against the beliefs that you were trying to support and push with them, after all, from what I saw.

One chooses the arguments they prefer according to their belief systems, and there is no scientific or logical proof as to which one is correct.

On the contrary, where valid logic goes is pretty clear and has been elaborated to you in response to your various attempted arguments. It's not really a matter of picking and choosing if there's actually concern about the truth of the matter and all claims and arguments are required to undergo serious scrutiny, rather than just being seized upon because they seem to support one's desired conclusion.

I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice - namely that God exists and that he too is part of an illusion in the mind of a Universal Intelligence.

*shrug* Feel free to believe things and feel free to argue that others should believe things, just try to make sure that you're not invoking fallacies to back up your beliefs or with your arguments. It's a pretty simple good practice principle, is it not?

Since we are dealing with minds that cannot distinguish between "reality" and lucid dreaming or advanced simulations you guys have no way of proving my experiences to be false - or even that the chances are slim.

I'd suggest taking a couple steps back and taking some time to cool off. The going nuclear defense, especially when invoked in such a defensive manner, really should be setting off a huge red flag for everyone, including you (on top of the many other red flags that you've been triggering with your choices in arguments).

 

[MikeG]

.......I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice........

Yep. Indeed. Which is why New Zealand is going to hell in a handcart, and you can predict the future of China from your impression of the single Chinese person you've ever met.

 

[Pixel42]

Yep. Indeed. Which is why New Zealand is going to hell in a handcart, and you can predict the future of China from your impression of the single Chinese person you've ever met.

We all know how very reliable personal experience has proved to be as a source of facts. That's why blood letting and purging are proven and accepted medical treatments, we all do rain dances during droughts, and everyone knows that the best way to stop a volcano rumbling is to sacrifice a virgin to the god who lives inside it.

PartSkeptic is so predictable that I know exactly what his response will be to this, so here's mine to that: Yes, a few traditional medical treatments turned out to be effective (willow bark etc). Do you know how we determined which they were? Go on, have a guess. I'll give you a clue: we used something whose initials are SM.

The process by which our ancestors convinced themselves that doing a rain dance made it rain, incidentally, is the same one PartSkeptic used to convince himself that his Tarot readings are accurate.

 

[Darat]

After doing a lot more reading on the subject, it seems we have a stand-off.

One chooses the arguments they prefer according to their belief systems, and there is no scientific or logical proof as to which one is correct.

I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice - namely that God exists and that he too is part of an illusion in the mind of a Universal Intelligence.

Since we are dealing with minds that cannot distinguish between "reality" and lucid dreaming or advanced simulations you guys have no way of proving my experiences to be false - or even that the chances are slim.

You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I've never really understood the fine-tuning argument as a proof for ID anyway.

Life is perfectly suited for the universe it is in and its genetics confirm perfectly with everything else around it and what we can find in history.
How does this prove design?

Now if our genetics were (totally) incompatible with the rest of life, or our solar system/planet were radically impossible with regards to the rest of the universe, or there would BE no rest of the universe, that would to me indicate design.

But we find none of that. Everything about life just can be explained with natural mechanisms. That's not design, that is just time.

 

[Aridas]

You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....

That's news to me. What evidence or argument are you referring to?

 

[PartSkeptic]

You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....

Okay. Got my interest. How?


And is that different from being in the dream of a Cosmic Intelligence?

 

[PartSkeptic]

You realize this is the intelligent design thread, right?

Design a computer on paper, or design a universe in a mind.

What's the difference? The bits are all made to interact and fit a purpose. The purpose is not perfection, but entertainment.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)Feel free to believe things and feel free to argue that others should believe things, just try to make sure that you're not invoking fallacies to back up your beliefs or with your arguments. It's a pretty simple good practice principle, is it not?
(snip)

Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.

 

[PartSkeptic]

When did you do all that more reading?

In the hours before posting. Mostly the Stanford Philosophy site.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

Constantly.

For example, from the very same post:

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

Anyone want to play “Name That Logical Fallacy”?

 

[Donn]

I've never really understood the fine-tuning argument as a proof for ID anyway.

By arguing fine-tuning, the religious do not notice how they constrain their God. The more those dials are set, just-so, the less free their God was in setting them.

Those fine-tuned constants determined God.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.

Great, show me such a statue... Oh wait, you can't.

And you've got it backwards again... You are confusing our argument that the probability of something having happened after the fact is always 1, with an unwillingness to think about the origin of the thing.

With regard to the universe, the correct answer is 'we don't know.'
Your attempts to make your personal superstition the go to hypothesis for why the universe exists is not supported by anything but wishful thinking.
We've tried to explain that to you in one of your other threads, but you always denied or ignored anyone's suggestion that you need to be able to show why your hypothesis is valid before you can expect people to accept it. Your personal (in)credulity isn't an argument.

 

[Pixel42]

And you've got it backwards again... You are confusing our argument that the probability of something having happened after the fact is always 1, with an unwillingness to think about the origin of the thing.

Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely fascinated by the origin of the universe and life. I just find it impossible to be astonished by the fact that a universe that has me in it has universal constants with values in the right range to have me in it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely fascinated by the origin of the universe and life.

You are not alone.

How many here were raised with science fiction in their formative years? I certainly was. There’s often been a theme of wonder as to the mysteries of origins. “The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov and “Contact” by Carl Sagan spring to mind, and there are no doubt myriad others.

Even Dawkins touches upon the sense of wonder in science in “Unweaving The Rainbow”. “Just-so” stories have always seemed to me superficial and “easy”, compared to the systematic digging down for pearls of knowledge that is the Scientific Method.