Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2013, 06:46 AM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(11-02-2013 08:39 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  If the theistic fine-tuning argument was NOT an effective argument for intentional design, why then would there be any need to posit alternative extravagant theories like multiverse (which violates the principle of Occams Razor) in order to try and get around it?

We observe intentional precision and deliberate fine tuning in this universe all the time. Why is theistic fine-tuning so hard to accept.

Its extraordinary how far atheists like Mr Stenger and Mr Krauss will go in their efforts to avoid the God Conclusion.

Yes, the multiverse is an attempt to explain things that happened very improbably. No, it is not an attempt "to get around [design]". Scientists want to know the truth, and to do that they try to come up with the best possible explanations for things that appear to need explanations (such as the improbability of a universe that contains atoms).


But there's a very good reason that they don't posit a god as an explanation for improbable circumstances -- a god would be far, far more improbable! It's like trying to explain the improbability of finding a supercomputer with no apparent designer by saying, "no, it was simply made by this supercomputer factory that had no apparent designer". If you want to answer that with "God didn't require a designer" then, by your standards, there's no reason that we can't posit "the universe didn't require a designer".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
12-02-2013, 07:40 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(11-02-2013 11:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Intelligent design means "it's too complicated, and I don't get it, so I'll just use god of the gaps, as that's the best I can cook up, and it's easier than actually learning something".
Fine tuned for what. The life of a black hole is 80 times the life of the sun....

Of COURSE there are vast amounts of space/time in which no life exists!

That makes it easier not harder to talk about the exquisitely fine-tuned conditions needed for life.
And thats exactly why atheistic cosmology has to invent a Magicians Nephew scenario of other worlds and parallel universes which theoretically exist in such large numbers as to make THIS random accidental world statistically more probable.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnciMnXT9wtNil_j0DB8d...wRzzvrRZJE]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
BTW - Did you just refer to the sun as having a life?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 07:49 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 07:40 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(11-02-2013 11:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Intelligent design means "it's too complicated, and I don't get it, so I'll just use god of the gaps, as that's the best I can cook up, and it's easier than actually learning something".
Fine tuned for what. The life of a black hole is 80 times the life of the sun....

Of COURSE there are vast amounts of space/time in which no life exists!

That makes it easier not harder to talk about the exquisitely fine-tuned conditions needed for life.
And thats exactly why atheistic cosmology has to invent a Magicians Nephew scenario of other worlds and parallel universes which theoretically exist in such large numbers as to make THIS random accidental world statistically more probable.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnciMnXT9wtNil_j0DB8d...wRzzvrRZJE]
As far as we know Earth is the only life supporting planet in the universe.

The science and mathematics would suggest there are others, but as yet they are undiscovered. The vast majority of the universe could not support human life. There are vast areas of our own planet where we cannot survive.

If anything, the universe is fine tuned to prevent life. We are lucky to be just barely hanging on to our one insignificant speck of rock in a cosmos that is unimaginably large.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
12-02-2013, 08:00 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013 11:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 07:40 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(11-02-2013 11:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Intelligent design means "it's too complicated, and I don't get it, so I'll just use god of the gaps, as that's the best I can cook up, and it's easier than actually learning something".
Fine tuned for what. The life of a black hole is 80 times the life of the sun....

Of COURSE there are vast amounts of space/time in which no life exists!

That makes it easier not harder to talk about the exquisitely fine-tuned conditions needed for life.
And thats exactly why atheistic cosmology has to invent a Magicians Nephew scenario of other worlds and parallel universes which theoretically exist in such large numbers as to make THIS random accidental world statistically more probable.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnciMnXT9wtNil_j0DB8d...wRzzvrRZJE]
One problem. That's not the reason any of it was postualted. No Cosmologist gives a shit about your belief system. Long ago they moved beyond the nonsense. You are projecting again Pussy Cat, with no evidence. Post ONE reference where a reputable Cosmologist says the motivation for any theory is to counter a belief system, Pathetic Pussy Cat. Obviously the universe was not "fine tuned" for life, if life existed in it ONLY a tiny infintesimal fraction of it's existence. Obviously it was "fine tuned", (if it was) for something ELSE, other than life, oh deluded one. But keep ranting. You are hilarious, and obviously enjoy making a fool of yourself, (rather frequently apparently).

So your assignment for the week Pussy Cat, is to explain to us exactly what are the elements of an argument, which would falsify your beliefs.
How and why did you decide that a universe almost entirely without life was made FOR life, and please state a finding or observation which would YOU would accept to falsify your belief.

And BTW Pussy Cat, your's and Lewis' view of "natural order" are entirely subjective. They are based on the Classical Aristotelian/Thomisic error that what appears to the human brain to be intuitively true, is in fact not true. You exposed your ignorance of Science and Math in the resurrection thread by calling it "word soup" or something like that, when I asked you about it before, as obviously you were completely incompetent to even discuss it. In fact Relativity, (Einstein's theory, which has been proven true), which is entrely non-intuitive, (ie any logical person would have, and did scoff at it as illogical), yet it was proven true, as was Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory, (also any logical person would have, and did scoff at the double slit experimantal findings in Physics, which proved that electrons behave as BOTH waves and particles, and in fact all of Quantum Mechanics is built on it, and Quantum Computing is about to produce computers based on it), and the tensors, (matricies) of Paul Dirac, (which are obviously WAY beyond your poor uneducated brain). So you have that as your assignment for next week. Learn about the words in the "word soup", and tell us what about them you would accept IN DEATAIL, as falsifiable, to your ancient belief system built on the fallacies of Aristotle and Aquinas, which modern science has proven to be false. Good luck with that. You already got a "F" in Apologetics in the resurrection thread, so beware, another "F" and you flunk out.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-02-2013, 08:35 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
What can I say about fine tuning that would make any kind of sense ?

I have the following items.
Milk, a wrench, a ball, some cocoa powder, a coat, a pen, a slipper, a plastic glass, some nails, a trophy, dorritos and a spoon.
I also have a million rooms. Each room containing these same items. These rooms are shaken up by an earthquake. It's devastating.
In one of those million rooms, you will find chocolate milk in a glass with a spoon in it.
Was this room, fined tuned for chocolate milk ? No, it wasn't.
It just so happened to have certain elements come together in a way that they didn't in the other 999,999 rooms.

The universe is HUGE. Lots of material and when you have billions of galaxies each containing billions of planets, you have a HUGE number of chances for chemicals to interact with each other in ways that they may not react in other parts of the universe, in order to make a glass of chocolate milk.

There is so much more I want to say on this topic, but I hope this small example helps.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
12-02-2013, 10:45 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 07:40 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(11-02-2013 11:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Intelligent design means "it's too complicated, and I don't get it, so I'll just use god of the gaps, as that's the best I can cook up, and it's easier than actually learning something".
Fine tuned for what. The life of a black hole is 80 times the life of the sun....

Of COURSE there are vast amounts of space/time in which no life exists!

That makes it easier not harder to talk about the exquisitely fine-tuned conditions needed for life.
And thats exactly why atheistic cosmology has to invent a Magicians Nephew scenario of other worlds and parallel universes which theoretically exist in such large numbers as to make THIS random accidental world statistically more probable.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnciMnXT9wtNil_j0DB8d...wRzzvrRZJE]


Sorry Pussycat IRC, you would be wrong again. Every uninhabitable planet, every extra needless star in the sky, is a piece of evidence against belief in a god or any fine tuning. For God to create the world as it is, he only needed one star and one planet. He didn't even need the star really, as he could have just created the light/heat/energy out of nothing, but instead he chose to use nuclear fusion. He could have placed us right next to the sun and allow life, or place us out past Neptune and be able to live, but he didn't.

You believe he placed us EXACTLY where we would expect to be had we evolved naturally, fine tuning ourselves to our environment (also known as evolution). And even here we struggle to survive on less than 1/3 of the planet's surface, in a world that was designed for us? If this world had been designed for us, as it is, you would expect us to be an aquatic water-breathing species. That would give your argument a little more weight, not much, but a little.





[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 11:27 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013 11:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 07:41 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  BTW - Did you just refer to the sun as having a life?
Yes Pussy Cat, I did. It's a common "euphemism" in science. I understand you never took a course in science, (are you home-schooled ?), but it generally refers to the span of time that an object is in existence. Everyone understands the difference in meaning in that useage and one where an organism is said to be "alive". Since you never took a science class I won't bore you with the common charactaristics of life, but as an idiomatic phrase in the English language, which you also apparently never studied, it's generally understood by educated people what is meant by that useage. I DO get however, your general, and repeated usual tactic of attempted deflection as you can't address the substance of the arguments, and try to derail the train of the argument by nit-picking and dancing around the main questions. At least you are consistently obtuse. I do have to give you that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-02-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 10:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Sorry Pussycat IRC, you would be wrong again. Every uninhabitable planet, every extra needless star in the sky, is a piece of evidence against belief in a god or any fine tuning. For God to create the world as it is, he only needed one star and one planet....

Nope. God didnt ''need'' anything. He is omnipotent.

I argue that God made the universe to such a Grand Design in order that we would appreciate our existence all the more.


The Taj Mahal was built because of the life of one single person.

[Image: 280px-Taj_Mahal_2012.jpg]

Contrast the enormous size and scale of the Taj Mahal (universe) with the seemingly insignificant life of Shah Jahan's wife, (a mote of dust.)

Perhaps He should have built a slightly less awesome, less beautiful structure to demonstrate a little bit less of His impressive, undying love.

[Image: Cardboard-shoe-box-blank-psd43359.png]

I wonder if Mr Sagan would have found God more believable if the universe was as boring as a shoe box wrapped in brown paper and if the people living inside it were dull and ignorant - refusing to believe there was anything beyond the shoe box - because empirical evidence is only good for when you are measuring stuff like cardboard.

[Image: 1271761064_carl-sagan-old-spice.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 11:40 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 07:41 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  BTW - Did you just refer to the sun as having a life?



OOPS!

Sometimes it's better to shut up and let people suspect you're ignorant that to say something which confirms the fact. Laughat
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: