Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

You said that it probably would not be evidence for God, but you said nothing about a designer………that is why I asked. (but íll take that your answer is no for both God and a designer)

So you simply have ridiculously high standards…………the evidence for God or design is not week it is just that you have very high and irrational standards, …

My next question would be, why is it that you only have high standards with “god” and then lower the standards when it comes to things that are consistent with your world view?......... (this last question is is not a real question, I already know the answer)


Science works largely due to “what ifs”(WI)……. WI are the basis for making predictions and testable models.

Stop playing silly word games.

 

[Pogo]

Again, my impression is that you are acting as if you do know that likely there is not a god nor a designer of the universe.



BTW you still have to prove your nonsense premise of “we can’t know if the universe was design or not”

Until you actually learn to parse English sentences as logical statements, you will continue to be accused of lack of comprehension. Your changing assumptions around to fit what you think we mean is one example, the other is your inability to actually follow the logical claims that your own sentences make.

 

[blü 2]

1 how would you know if a pattern is design? ¿what method would you use?

As you know, even into the 19th century the "argument from design" as a "proof" of God's existence was in general use. And as you know, the discovery of evolution by Wallace, Darwin and others replaced superstition with knowledge ─ which is why Darwin is Public Enemy No 1 with creos.

The idea of a "Designer" was almost a necessity in the absence of credible alternatives. The highly credible alternative is evolution, of course. And as you know, evolution is the theory overarching all modern biology.

So the old "argument from design" turned out to be an argument from ignorance ─ though not necessarily as a reflection on those that accepted it, since nothing better was available before evolution was expounded.

2 does the universe meets this criteria? Yes or no why?

The singular of 'criteria' is 'criterion', just so you know.

The universe doesn't meet any such criterion. Nothing about it implies a conscious and purposeful maker. FT is simply a curious datum about it, and since it has attracted attention in the high places where it was discovered, that will the place to keep an eye on if you're waiting for an explanation. At present there isn't one. And when there is, I dare say it won't involve imaginary beings, let alone imaginary beings whose inefficiency is utterly extraordinary.

 

[blü 2]

Again, my impression is that you are acting as if you do know that likely there is not a god nor a designer of the universe.

That reminds me ─ you haven't got back to me with a description of a real god ─ one who exists in the world external to the self, whom we know about through our senses (as distinct from the hundred of thousands if not millions of gods who only exist, largely by acculturation, as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains).

And I'm still waiting to be told what "godness" is, the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could make universes, raise the dead &c, would lack.

I think I've asked you about these matters before, but regardless, I'll be grateful for your reasoned and clear reply.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The FT argument is not based on the assumption that the values could be different

I'm only aware of one fine tuning argument, and it is an argument for an intelligent designer for our universe.

Distinct from that and prior to it is the statement that the universe appears finely tuned. This is not an argument.

Then there are assorted hypotheses to account for it such as a god, a multiverse, a Boltzmann brain, but these are also not arguments.

I am asking you to provide the best objection to an argument

How about stating what argument you mean. Is it the one I alluded to or something else?

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,?

I assume that you meant to include the signature (the words following sincerely) in quotes as well.

No, I would not, but I would accept it as evidence of an intelligent author if we could rule out illusion. Powerful extraterrestrials are more likely than supernatural agents.

Incidentally, writing would be an example of specified complexity, Demski's analog to Behe's irreducible complexity. Each was said to be evidence of an intelligent designer.

would you at least accept that as evidence for design?

Yes.

Incidentally, this is the same dilemma regarding what happens if evolutionary theory is falsified. Imagine we uncover a finding that upends naturalistic evolution. That serves the same role as the stars announcing intelligent design by spelling out a message. Suddenly, we have to account for all of that evidence in light of the falsifying find, and only intelligent design by a deceptive designer that apparently intended to deceive to believe that naturalistic evolution had occurred but was found out remains possible. If so, we would have to choose the naturalistic intelligent designers over suprenatural gods.

 

[gnostic]

It seems to me that you are saying that “you can´t use that FT argument (nor any other argument) in support of the existence of God, because the existence of God has not been stablished.

The existence of God has only been established in religions, in scriptures and in the faiths people have in their respective religious beliefs...but these are based on faith, nothing that anyone can objectively verify.

Another word for faith is “conviction”…faith is just one’s personal conviction, that what he or she believes to be true. Faith & conviction are synonymous with each other, they are about having confidence in one’s firmly-held belief.

Faith or conviction are not evidence for anything, because personal faith & conviction are subjective, they don’t require logical reasoning or independent physical evidence. As it highly subjective, faith or conviction or confidence, call them you willed, all I see a person who has faith is one who is biased.

Your firmly-held belief in the existence of God or the existence of Designer, is your own faith and bias…and that’s all everyone about such existence. That type of “establishment” don’t require logic or evidence.

Faith is unreliable, because there used to be hundreds of thousands or millions of people in ancIent times, who have their own established religion and faith in their respective gods, like

• Ra, Amun-Ra, the triad of Osiris, Isis & Horus, or Khnum, etc, in Egypt,
• or that of An (Anu), NInhursag, Enlil, Enki (Ea), Inanna (Ishtar), Marduk, etc in Mesopotamia,
• or that of Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, Ares/Mars, Hera/Juno, Athene/Minerva, Artemis/Diana of ancient Greece & Rome,
• of Brahma, Vishnu, Durga, Kali, etc, in India.
• and so on. There were many established religions back in ancient times, in the American continents, in Africa, Central Asia, and so on.

Your Christianity wasn’t the only established religion and established faith. You cannot say these people who have different faiths to be wrong, and yours is right, because there are nothing to verify, to determine which religious beliefs are true.

The problem is that neither Fine-Tuned concepts, nor that of Intelligent Design, are sciences. They have been tested, because the advocates have never been able to empirical evidence to verify either of them. Or they have, are claims, not evidence.

You have made absurd claim recently:

Since you are unable to answer question I will simply keep repeating the question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

I can answer this absurdity, is that this hasn’t happened, and it will “never will”. Why would anyone be so stupid and naive to accept something that hasn’t happened?

Your example of star constellation with a signature, is merely another claim - the “what-if” claim.

It certainly isn’t true, because it has never happened, so I really don’t see you feel to make up some stupid trivial example, and to anyone who would answer your question seriously.

Anyone can make up some what-if game, but if that‘s what-if is highly unlikely to happen, then what’s the bloody point? Your example don’t in any way establish that Intelligent Design is true, nor that of finely tuned argument is. It is just one more claims, in the hundreds of other pointless claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Understand, I am assuming that you are familiar with the argument, that you have read about it in multiple sources and that you have seen “both sides” of the argument. (if this assumption is wrong, then I am not interested in a conversation)

Given that assumption, I’m a simply asking you to share the objection that you think is the strongest. In my opinion this is an honest request……………..

Why would it matter if I'm familiar with it or not?
I'ld still like to know how you justify the claims you make.

Again, quit being so arrogant.

Because your alleged request is not a serious request but rather an attempt to denigrate me………… my request is conducive to a nice a interesting dialog, your request is just “you trolling”

I can assure you that my request is a serious one.
No, it is not "trolling" to ask someone to justify their claims.............

I am asking you to provide the best objection to an argument………….what is immature about that?

Before I even an have an objection, I need to understand your justification for your claims.
If you don't have any, I'll just reject it at face value.

To object to a claim, I would have to object to the justification given for it.
"X is the case"
"why?"
"for such and such reason"
"I disagree, because...."

Without the "for such and such reason" there is nothing there for me to disagree OR agree with. Then there is just a bare claim.
And as the good ol saying goes: what is asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.

But that was not an honest question, you are just in “questioning everything mode”

I assure you it's an honest question.

and you dont disagree......so why wasting time with this question?

I'm asking you justify that claim.
At this point, I don't agree because I see no way to justify such as an actual possibility.
So I'm asking you to give me a reason, assuming you have one.

If you don't - fine, but then I remain in a position where I have no reason, which will only result in me dismissing the bare claim at face value.

The answer is

“there is not al contradiction between the concept of a designer, and this designer being the cause of the FT of the universe. Therefore it is not logically impossible, (this is a contradiction not like a married bachelor)...................yoiu knoe and agree with this.........

I think that is hopelessly insufficient.

For example, say there are cookies missing from my kitchen.
I offer as a "logical possibility" that extra-dimensional aliens teleported into my kitchen, stole the cookies and then teleported out again into their own dimension.
There is "no contradiction" between the concept of these extra-dimensional aliens and the missing cookies. So do you agree it is therefor a "logical possibility"?

You simply asked the question to keep the conversation long tedious and boring……….that you can claim victory after me getting tired.

No.

Ok I have answered your question (+ other 4 or 5 on the topic)

Your answer is not satisfying at all.

It is your turn to answer my question. ¿what is your best objection to the FT argument?

Where the argument the fails?

I don't need objections to "arguments" that can't be rationally justified.
I get to dismiss such arguments at facevalue, on the grounds of them being unjustified due to unsupported premises.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well that is analogous to the FT argument.

1 There are many possible ways in which stars can exist, but only one or few combinations would look like a meaningful text.

Analogous to

2 There are many possible values in the constants and initial conditions of the universe, but only one or few combinations would produce a life permitting universe.

So if you accept the first argument as evidence, you should also accept the second argument

This is seriously and hopelessly fallacious.


The stars rearranging themselves to spell out an english sentence is not at all analogous to the universe existing the way it exists.
For starters, the first would literally violate all the known laws of physics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, by your logic one can´t know if something was design or not, then this conversation is useless.

We detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing and / or by contrasting artificial objects to naturally occuring things.


This literally means that we require:
- knowledge of manufacturing processes
- at least one example of the thing in question being artificial as supposed to natural.


Given we have only one universe, we have nothing to contrast it against.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, the truth is that your whole premise is wrong, of course we can know if things are design, archeologists, forensic scientists, fire experts, and you in your daily life make design inferences all the time,

But never is it done through arguments of ignorance or assumed conclusions, like you are engaging in.

Again: archeologists, forensic scientists, fire experts,... they "detect" design by contrasting known manufacturing processes against known natural processes, by contrasting artificial materials against natural materials.

We don't have any known manufacturing processes to shape universes or any artificial universes to contrast against natural universes to do this exercise with the universe.

So your analogies fail once again.

 

[Tamino]

Faith is unreliable, because there used to be hundreds of thousands or millions of people in ancIent times, who have their own established religion and faith in their respective gods, like

• Ra, Amun-Ra, the triad of Osiris, Isis & Horus, or Khnum, etc, in Egypt,
• or that of An (Anu), NInhursag, Enlil, Enki (Ea), Inanna (Ishtar), Marduk, etc in Mesopotamia,
• or that of Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, Ares/Mars, Hera/Juno, Athene/Minerva, Artemis/Diana of ancient Greece & Rome,
• of Brahma, Vishnu, Durga, Kali, etc, in India.
• and so on. There were many established religions back in ancient times, in the American continents, in Africa, Central Asia, and so on.

Your Christianity wasn’t the only established religion and established faith. You cannot say these people who have different faiths to be wrong, and yours is right, because there are nothing to veri to determine mine which beliefs are true.

I agree. And I would like to add that many of the polytheist religions are far less concerned with "faith" and "truth".
Instead, the focus is on religious practices, on the solitary or communal celebration of rites and festivals... It's a way of establishing and defining your place in the world and your relationship with other human and non- human people.

From this point of view, the Christian and Muslim eagerness to prove their god and proclaim their faith at every opportunity is rather strange.
For me, it's more like this: There's the sun. We can probably agree that by sensory experience and scientific inquiry, the sun exists. I call it Ra and worship it as a god because that is my way of relating to this live-giving force. I don't care at all if other people have the same belief or relationship.

 

[leroy]

Why would it matter if I'm familiar with it or not?
I'ld still like to know how you justify the claims you make.

It matters because personally I am not interested in having a conversation with someone who doesn’t understand the argument.

If you want a detailed explanation on what the argument is and how the premises are supported, then watch this 5 series videos. (the information in this video represents my view)

I will not ask you to do the impossible task of responding to every point in the video, but please do quote a relevant mistake (quote the actual words)

And then start your sentence with “this claim is wrong/fallacious because…

Before I even an have an objection, I need to understand your justification for your claims.

ok you have the videos.............whatch them and share 1 objection

To object to a claim, I would have to object to the justification given for it.
"X is the case" }(design is the best expalnation for the FT of the universe)
"why?" (because all the other alteratives fail, any altertive is worst than design)
"for such and such reason" (explained in the videos)
"I disagree, because...."................................. (please answer)

(my comments in red above)

I assure you it's an honest question.

ok, for context you are asking why is design a "logical possibility"

For example, say there are cookies missing from my kitchen.
I offer as a "logical possibility" that extra-dimensional aliens teleported into my kitchen, stole the cookies and then teleported out again into their own dimension.
There is "no contradiction" between the concept of these extra-dimensional aliens and the missing cookies. So do you agree it is therefor a "logical possibility"?

Yes, given that there is not a contradiction in “tras dimensional aliens” and “steeling cookies “ the this is logically possible.

Something like a married bachelor would be logically impossible, because there is a contradiction…………you don’t have that with aliens nor with the designer

Was you question answered?...................

So my question is

What relevant mistake did you found in the videos and why you think it´s a mistake?

 

[leroy]

The stars rearranging themselves to spell out an english sentence is not at all analogous to the universe existing the way it exists.
For starters, the first would literally violate all the known laws of physics.

You don’t have to violate any laws, maybe if you look today at some point of the observable universe with a telescope the stars would naturally form meaningful words and sentences by simply following their orbits and the laws of gravity.

Would such an observation be evidence for design?

The stars rearranging themselves to spell out an english sentence is not at all analogous to the universe existing the way it exists.

why isen´t it analogous?

the first would literally violate all the known laws of physics.

Even if true, why is it disanalogous to the FT of the universe?

 

[Pogo]

You don’t have to violate any laws, maybe if you look today at some point of the observable universe with a telescope the stars would naturally form meaningful words and sentences by simply following their orbits and the laws of gravity.

Would such an observation be evidence for design?

why isen´t it analogous?


Even if true, why is it disanalogous to the FT of the universe?

So you do know Low Bar Bill,
Can you recognize the Kyle in you or only the Bill in you?

 

[leroy]

The stars rearranging themselves to spell out an english sentence is not at all analogous to the universe existing the way it exists.
For starters, the first would literally violate all the known laws of physics.

You don’t have to violate any laws, maybe if you look today at some point of the observable universe with a telescope the stars would naturally form meaningful words and sentences by simply following their orbits and the laws of gravity.

Would such an observation be evidence for design?

The stars rearranging themselves to spell out an english sentence is not at all analogous to the universe existing the way it exists.

why isen´t it analogous?

the first would literally violate all the known laws of physics.

Even if true, why is it disanalogous to the FT of the universe?

We detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing and / or by contrasting artificial objects to naturally occuring things.


This literally means that we require:
- knowledge of manufacturing processes
- at least one example of the thing in question being artificial as supposed to natural.

You are wrong because there are counterexamples……. For example for centuries nobody knew about the manufacturing process of how the pyramids in Egypt where built…………….but we could still detect signs of manufacture and conclude that the pyramids where design.

This conclusion would still be true even if there was only one pyramid in the whole planet

In other words

Not knowing the manufacturing process, doesn’t imply that we can´t know if it is designed................if you dont explicitly disagree, I will assume that you agree




Note my courtesy, I am telling you exactly why I think you are wrong can I have rthe same courtesy

 

[F1fan]

It seems to me that you are saying that “you can´t use that FT argument (nor any other argument) in support of the existence of God, because the existence of God has not been stablished.

If that is what you are saying then it is circular reasoning, if not, then I have no idea on what you are talking about

No, circular reasoning is how someone will "infer" that FT is how the laws of physics are what they are, so that suggests a God exists. And if a God didn't exist then there would be no way for the laws to be fine tuned for life to emerge. Therefore God exists and FT is how the laws became what they are.

See how the two ideas are dependent on the other being true, and assuming (or inferring) one is true then the other must also be true.

To point out this flawed thinking is not itself circular reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It matters because personally I am not interested in having a conversation with someone who doesn’t understand the argument.

That would seem to exclude you from arguing this concept.

 

[Pogo]

You don’t have to violate any laws, maybe if you look today at some point of the observable universe with a telescope the stars would naturally form meaningful words and sentences by simply following their orbits and the laws of gravity.

Would such an observation be evidence for design?

why isen´t it analogous?


Even if true, why is it disanalogous to the FT of the universe?

You are wrong because there are counterexamples……. For example for centuries nobody knew about the manufacturing process of how the pyramids in Egypt where built…………….but we could still detect signs of manufacture and conclude that the pyramids where design.

This conclusion would still be true even if there was only one pyramid in the whole planet

In other words

Not knowing the manufacturing process, doesn’t imply that we can´t know if it is designed................if you dont explicitly disagree, I will assume that you agree




Note my courtesy, I am telling you exactly why I think you are wrong can I have rthe same courtesy

Well, sure if you look at stars from enough points and there are enough stars you will see just about any pattern you want, this is called paradoilia,
Not design.
And pyramids where assigned design because they were written about by contemporaries not because we didn't recognize how they had cut the stones. Alien manufacture and beyond ideas were only accepted by crackpots before we rediscovered some techniques they used.

 

[F1fan]

It matters because personally I am not interested in having a conversation with someone who doesn’t understand the argument.

If you want a detailed explanation on what the argument is and how the premises are supported, then watch this 5 series videos. (the information in this video represents my view)

I will not ask you to do the impossible task of responding to every point in the video, but please do quote a relevant mistake (quote the actual words)

We understand the argument. The most notable thing about it is how it exploits emotions, and doesn't employ reason. There is no direct evidence at all for a God/creator. The conclusion relies upon people having been exposed to religious dogma that includes a creator. The mind goes to that idea when the argument unfolds, about how the odds of physics being what it is too high and improbable that it MUST be that idea I heard about in Sunday school. The math does not assess the odds of a God/creator existing, it just makes the assumption. Why? Because that is the motive of those making this argument. These are people who have a motive to justify the God they believe in exists.

The argument is a sales pitch, not concise reasoning. There are no facts, just an aim and goal that claimants try to pull on others.

What relevant mistake did you found in the videos and why you think it´s a mistake?

The argument assumes a God/creator as defacto, and the only option to resolve the odds of physics being what they are. There is no factual basis for a God even being an option. The whole argument is self-serving.

One example of how FT works is that if a person wins a 1 in a million lottery no one asks questions. But if a person wins three 1 in one thousand lotteries ina row, then it's questionable. Yes it is questionable, but it is still possible naturally without there being any fraud or supernatural agent. This is what FT advocates ignore, that natural processes are still possible, and even more likley given the lack of evidence for any supernatural causes.

 

[Pogo]

You don’t have to violate any laws, maybe if you look today at some point of the observable universe with a telescope the stars would naturally form meaningful words and sentences by simply following their orbits and the laws of gravity.

Would such an observation be evidence for design?

why isen´t it analogous?


Even if true, why is it disanalogous to the FT of the universe?

You are wrong because there are counterexamples……. For example for centuries nobody knew about the manufacturing process of how the pyramids in Egypt where built…………….but we could still detect signs of manufacture and conclude that the pyramids where design.

This conclusion would still be true even if there was only one pyramid in the whole planet

In other words

Not knowing the manufacturing process, doesn’t imply that we can´t know if it is designed................if you dont explicitly disagree, I will assume that you agree




Note my courtesy, I am telling you exactly why I think you are wrong can I have rthe same courtesy

In order for you to catch up on some of the prior discussions that address your presentation of long debunked ideas, here are some summaries that will save you reading several 18th century books and explain why your arguments such as they are are dismissed for many reasons none of which are original to your presentation.
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence​

The Problem of Induction​