Intelligent Design

[Emily's Cat]

To be fair, if something like the Christian God existed, that would be relevant. However, I see such a being as basically a work of fiction, and in the total absence of any compelling evidence I see no particular importance in the question of whether this particular work of fiction is or is not true.

Dave

Given the hypothetical christian god's level of involvement these past two thousand years, I'm going to stick with my initial assessment of "irrelevant".

ETA: perhaps I should say "irrelevant to me", because if somehow actual proof of any god's existence were to appear tomorrow, I'm supremely unlikely to change my behavior in any way. I might need to include an exception for Cthulu.

 

[Thor 2]

Does that make me a "tough atheist"? I believe that the existence of god is irrelevant.

You won't think that if you get to Heaven, and after being issued with a harp, told to get on with the grovelling.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You won't think that if you get to Heaven, and after being issued with a harp, told to get on with the grovelling.

If an actual god exists, my chances of getting into heaven are probably pretty slim, seeing as I've spent my life pretty much declaring said god to be both pointless and imaginary. So far as i can tell, the gods that have heavens aren't really forgiving about me denying their existence. I don't even qualify for limbo - I'm going to end up in one of the first coupe of rings of hell, but I'll have to check my Dante for specific locations...

Damn, I think I'm down there in the sixth hell. Pretty sure I fall under heretics.

 

[Peregrinus]

... I'll have to check my Dante for specific locations...

IIR (don't care enough to go to the bookcase) the center of hell is a river of ice. Antarctica, mayhap? You could do worse than to have emperor penguins as companions in the afterlife.

 

[dropzone]

If an actual god exists, my chances of getting into heaven are probably pretty slim, seeing as I've spent my life pretty much declaring said god to be both pointless and imaginary.

He's actually pretty cool with it, having given you a brain and not something to play Video Poker with. Me, I'm at a loss figuring out how anybody could, long-term, win. I suspect I am insufficiently evolved.

Same with the ponies. How could anyone familiar with handicaps POSSIBLY know which horse will win? OTOH, Wife had a friend who spoke Spanish and would X-Ray trainers after the AM workouts. She made out OK in the races after her shift.

 

[dropzone]

Read Job. The Chief ***HOLE in Charge was good with stacking the deck. I have no idea why the fundies aren't.

ETA: Made the post compliant.

 

[dropzone]

Interesting. CAIC (Chief Agent in Charge; I burned out one) gets censored, but not the other?

 

[Delvo]

When an atheist is absolutely certain in their own mind that there is no God, you cannot get them to admit to even the slightest possibility.

You haven't asked about that or argued for that. Your argument has been on a different subject. Why would you now pretend to have ever been debating a completely different subject from the one you've actually been engaged in this whole time?

They know better. And hence are superior (by evolution they say) to both skeptics and theists.

Lie.

Of course, evolution has proven that religion has a purpose, namely the advancement of a group or society.

Then why do more-religious societies consistently do worse than less-religious ones in every way?

They have no explanation for the propensity of the human mind for mystical thought.

Actually, we do, and it's been a popular enough subject around here that I'm nearly certain you already know that. But even if we didn't, so what?

No mention of any hypothesis of why the universe started out the way it did.

So what? Rejecting an inherently invalid idea does not require an alternative.

Apart from mathematical theory, is there any evidence whatsoever that multiverses exist? Do you not think that it is an attempt to give an alternative (but fanciful) hypothesis...

Of course it isn't. And you know it. You're just pretending it is because you've decided that that's the target you want to attack to try to divert attention away from the complete lack of any evidence for your own mythology-based claims.

...the FACT that our universe is not only incredibly complex but beautifully "designed" with everything "just right" and with the constants and equations all in harmony and fine tuned?

There is no such "FACT". Your choice to ignore the earlier post in which I debunked that nonsense in detail did not make the nonsense valid.

I am willing to accept that God might not exist, as well as the possibility that he might.

Your posts tell otherwise. This is a cover story.

We have no proof and no evidence.

Then why argue for a made-up extra item which no evidence indicates and no specific conclusion or inference could possibly come from?

And really, "proof and evidence"... that form of expression only comes from that "ShockOfGod" character. I haven't heard anything from him or anyone else pushing his crap for a few years; I didn't think there was anybody left who didn't know that nobody takes it seriously.

We have clues and logic both ways.

You have yet to present any.

Now are you willing to admit that there might be a God, or are you certain that God cannot and does not exist?

It's a known fact, beyond any doubt at all, that God does not exist.

• If it did exist, then at least one of the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis would have happened and the other wouldn't be in the book; we know that neither did and both are still there.
• If it did exist, then the structure of the world would be as its book says (a flat surface under a solid dome under water); we know that it isn't.
• If it did exist, then the Garden Of Eden story would have happened; we know that it didn't.
• If it did exist, then the Flood would have happened; we know that it didn't.
• If it did exist, then the Tower Of Babel story would have happened; we know that it didn't.
• If it did exist, then its entire Chosen People would have been enslaved in Egypt; we know that they weren't.
• If it did exist, then the Exodus story would have happened; we know that it didn't.
• If it did exist, then the collapse of the walls of Jericho would have happened at about the same time as the Hebrew takeover of Canaan; we know that it was off by centuries.
• If it did exist, then it would have been able to arrange for the defeat of an iron-equipped army by a bronze-equipped army; its own story tells that it couldn't.
• If it did exist, then it would have held the sun still according to another battle story; nobody else on the planet noticed that happening.

"But wait! That's just the Old Testament!", you say? OK, but if God did exist, then so would its son on Earth, which he apparently didn't, based on not only the absence of contemporary non-Biblical indicators of him but also the way the New Testament itself developed over time, and God's ideas of how to run a society would be good, effective ideas resulting in societies running better, but we know that the opposite is actually the case.

"But wait! I'm not talking about all of that stuff! I'm just talking about a vague absentee creator, a god of nothingness that can only be described with exactly the same kinds of descriptions as something that doesn't exist!", you say? But what I was just talking about is what the name "God" which you used is actually the name of in real life, and it's what's trying to hide behind the Christian apologetics you're pushing, and I prefer to deal with what people actually believe and are actually trying to defend rather than just what they're trying to prop up in its place and equivocate with it.

And, just to directly deal with the camouflage fake-God nobody really believes in, just on its own, anyway... yes, it's not-impossible that such a thing could exist. But it's still better to figure it doesn't anyway just on the principle of not making up stuff that the evidence doesn't say exists. And even if it does, so what? In order to come up with something that that could be seriously said of, you've had to define it as a whole lot of nothing anyway, stripping it of not only anything that would have ever made it "God" in the first place, but also anything that would make it worth thinking about or paying any attention to even if it did, in some non-existence-like way, exist.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)
So ID is a philosophy, not science. Nice to know we agree there.

We do agree. The mystery and origins of life have always been "scientific" philosophy. And that includes what came before the Big Bang, how the laws of physics came about and multiverses.

"Scientific" in this case means using observation and logic to arrive at a hypothesis of the origin. Observation of human behavior, including the ability and intelligence to design things, is a part of this.

Some people refuse to take part for whatever reason. Either it challenges their faith that God cannot exist, or it hurts their brains to do so.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)
You walk along, and see that he has rolled a set with 1,2,2,3,3,6. That's your grandmother's birthday - December 23, 1936! It has special meaning to you.(snip)

If I met someone who rolled 1,2,3,4,5,6 the first time. I would be suspicious.

How many universes do you KNOW are out there? How many TRIES do you KNOW it took?

Your answer would invoke the unscientific anthropic principle, or just a simple I do not know, or I do not care.

The reasoning is that there is ONE universe, and one that on one roll of the cosmic dice the constants turned out "just right".

And the serendipitous events required for the evolution of the human race also turned out "just right".

If it looks like a designed universe, quacks like a designed universe, then it may be a designed universe.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You haven't asked about that or argued for that. Your argument has been on a different subject. Why would you now pretend to have ever been debating a completely different subject from the one you've actually been engaged in this whole time?

My signature line gives my position. I choose to take a position for the sake of this debate. Most posters here are hard atheists, and not skeptics, and you are one by your own words.

Lie.

No. Look at the posts that try to "teach me the error of my ways". And check out some atheist articles that warn against arrogance of "being right".

Then why do more-religious societies consistently do worse than less-religious ones in every way?

They do not. Judaism and Israel are examples of the most religious society on earth. They are the elite and do exceptionally well.

Actually, we do, and it's been a popular enough subject around here that I'm nearly certain you already know that. But even if we didn't, so what?

No. Scientists think they do, simply because they can stimulate what appears to be a mystic experience. They cannot account for why the brain is built that way.

So what? Rejecting an inherently invalid idea does not require an alternative.

You have no explanation as to why you consider it an inherently invalid idea. You start with the assumption (and fixed belief) that you KNOW for a fact that God cannot exist.

Of course it isn't. And you know it. You're just pretending it is because you've decided that that's the target you want to attack to try to divert attention away from the complete lack of any evidence for your own mythology-based claims.

Give me ONE fact that is seen as proving the existence of the multiverse theory.

There is no such "FACT". Your choice to ignore the earlier post in which I debunked that nonsense in detail did not make the nonsense valid.

There are a lot of scientists who are atheists who are amazed at the beauty and complexity of the universe. Einstein was one.

Your posts tell otherwise. This is a cover story.

I have covered this in numerous posts elsewhere. Read my signature line.

Then why argue for a made-up extra item which no evidence indicates and no specific conclusion or inference could possibly come from?

And really, "proof and evidence"... that form of expression only comes from that "ShockOfGod" character. I haven't heard anything from him or anyone else pushing his crap for a few years; I didn't think there was anybody left who didn't know that nobody takes it seriously.

Proof and evidence in scientific terms. God (if he exists) wishes to remain hidden but is happy to provide clues to his existence and to reveal himself to the key prophets in a number of religions.

You have yet to present any.

I have given plenty. Just look at my history on this site. Personal experience and the experience of others.

It's a known fact, beyond any doubt at all, that God does not exist.
(snip)

At least you are honest in your statement that you are a hard atheist, and not a rational skeptic.

 

[Aridas]

My, my, I have seemed to have stirred up the collective. Perhaps some of you will channel that energy into brushing up on science and math.

My work in this thread is done.

Black Powder fan? Either way, you seem to be one who's demonstrated a very superficial or flat out wrong understanding of the relevant science, math, and logic, quite consistently. For an example of each, though, trying to claim that a sample size of one is sufficient to determine non-trivial facts without even having a working model available to base the "facts" on is more than enough to demonstrate that your understanding of the relevant math is wrong. Trying to worm your way out of that by pointing out that a sample size of one is sufficient to demonstrate entirely different things is a rather obvious failure of logic. Your attempt to throw out the string theory TedTalk really just showed that you don't understand much about the science itself there and how it relates to the points made previously.

In short, this post of yours seems to be nothing more than you running away after numerous demonstrations that you don't actually understand what you're talking about and being utterly unable to refute such, and directly after failing to divert attention away from your failures by throwing up a barely relevant and noncontroversial fact.

 

[MikeG]

.......Give me ONE fact that is seen as proving the existence of the multiverse theory...........

Give us one reason why this is relevant.

You act as though there is a straightforward choice between multiverses and ID, and that is a nonsensical position. Personally, I am perfectly content to be as sceptical of the existence of multiple universes as I am of the existence of god/s. Someone will let me know if there is any evidence discovered of either, no doubt.

I note that you still haven't withdrawn your ludicrous assertion that atheists claim that evolution has made them better than theists. This sort of thing does reputations no good at all, and I have no idea why you are studiously ignoring it.

 

[Aridas]

You act as though there is a straightforward choice between multiverses and ID, and that is a nonsensical position. Personally, I am perfectly content to be as sceptical of the existence of multiple universes as I am of the existence of god/s. Someone will let me know if there is any evidence discovered of either, no doubt.

It's almost like I wasn't speaking only for myself when I said -

There's still the honest "We don't have sufficient information at present to determine anything of value AND there's no good argument favoring rushing the conclusion on practical grounds, given the lack of relevance to actually making practical decisions on how to act." There's good arguments favoring trying to learn more, of course, but that's somewhat different.

Such a shock!

 

[MikeG]

It's almost like I wasn't speaking only for myself when I said -

Such a shock!

You obviously don't know PS very well yet. You generally have to ask at least 10 times before you get some sort of an answer, and then it will be obtuse. You ask, I ask, everyone asks.........we're not competing. We're trying to extract an answer.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

My

I have given plenty. Just look at my history on this site. Personal experience and the experience of others.

Yes, evidence that amounts to 'I can't believe the gasket on my hot water cylinder just broke, therefore the entire universe is a simulation run by God, and I am His chosen one.'
Very compelling

 

[Dave Rogers]

Of course, evolution has proven that religion has a purpose, namely the advancement of a group or society.

This is an interesting one, in that it shows the fundamental inability of the religious, who wish to ascribe a sense of purpose to everything, to understand the meaning of evolution. Evolution does not "prove that [whatever] has a purpose;" it selects for traits that result in a greater likelihood to survive and propagate in a particular environment. A hundred million years ago, evolution selected for extremely large, approximately reptilian organisms as particularly suited to the environment at that time. None of these currently exist, indicating that they are not suited to the environment at this particular time. Applying the same logic to religion, one might note that, in the environment of ideas, those that specifically deny the possibility of objective proof are no longer as favourable than they used to be, and trends are seen that other belief systems, ideologies or modes of thought are competing with them quite successfully in places. This does not mean that evolution has proven that atheism has any more of a purpose, or that religion has any less; it simply means that the environment is different, and different traits or balances of traits are selected. The word "purpose" doesn't really belong in a discussion of evolution.

Dave

 

[Peregrinus]

Applying ... logic to religion...

Do you really want to open/reopen that can of worms?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If I met someone who rolled 1,2,3,4,5,6 the first time. I would be suspicious.

How many universes do you KNOW are out there? How many TRIES do you KNOW it took?

Your answer would invoke the unscientific anthropic principle, or just a simple I do not know, or I do not care.

The reasoning is that there is ONE universe, and one that on one roll of the cosmic dice the constants turned out "just right".

How do you KNOW there is only one? How do you KNOW that there was only one roll of the dice?

Just because you only observed one roll doesn't mean that there has been only one. You have no way of knowing how many there have been. An observation of singular outcome provides exactly ZERO information to the observer about the distribution of possible outcomes.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If I met someone who rolled 1,2,3,4,5,6 the first time. I would be suspicious.

In the present instance, though, you've met someone who rolled 6 the first time, and you're still suspicious.

Dave