(November 26, 2020 at 6:48 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(November 26, 2020 at 6:15 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: For the gazillionth time, evolution doesn't explain away fine-tuning. You can describe all the processes you want that led to what we see, that doesn't negate a designer who intended all along for the universe to devolve into its present form -through these processes.

That post was about beauty, not fine tuning.  You stated that beauty was evidence of design, which it most certainly isn't.

But yes, evolution does answer some fine-tuning arguments, but certainly not all.  For instance, life in some radically different form could exist with some physical constants being quite different.  What that exact set of life-allowing constants is, we don't know, but life in some form might exist in a universe that was different from ours.

Life evolves to fit the universe -- the universe isn't designed to make a particular form of life.

If your belief in God is founded on the fine-tuning argument, you may find yourself disappointed one day.  You should read the opinion of actual scientists, such as Sean Carroll.  He has a nice debate on Youtube with William Lane Craig, and while both perform well, Carroll clearly makes the better case.

Also, evolution doesn't try to explain away so-called " fine-tuning" and evolution renders the unfounded idea of design redundant. Nor is evolution devolving that's just silly. His response is just a bunch of empty assertions and a heaping helping of personal credulity. All of which is worthless.

---

(November 26, 2020 at 6:40 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote:

(November 26, 2020 at 6:15 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: For the gazillionth time, evolution doesn't explain away fine-tuning. You can describe all the processes you want that led to what we see, that doesn't negate a designer who intended all along for the universe to devolve into its present form -through these processes.

Are you saying that humans (and other mammals) were designed?   If so they were designed badly, who would design an organism with a common opening for breathing, feeding, drinking and speaking, that's a stupid design. Even with something as simple as a car has different openings for water, fuel, oil etc.

Evolution renders the unfounded assertion of a designer redundant. He may not accept that. But who cares.

Mountains are not designed. They are gradual formations arising through natural processes.

Similarly, planets are not designed.

Animals are not designed. They gradually come to be through evolution and natural selection.

Some things clearly aren't designed. So not everything is designed.

Unless you want to reject science. Or adopt an unconventional definition of design.

Irrespective of the definition you want to use for design, one can't use the example of clocks and such to then infer that everything else must've been designed because the way things like mountains and rocks and plants and such come to be is radically different from how clocks and cars come to be.

As for fine-tuning of the universe, we only have one observable universe we can work with, so the sample size isn't sufficient enough for us to determine if a universe with even slightly different constants would've stopped being fine-tuned for eventual human life on one small particular planet.

Even then, this presumes only this one universe exists. When taking a whole multiverse into consideration, the fine-tuning argument becomes even less compelling.

(November 26, 2020 at 2:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(November 25, 2020 at 4:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In short, the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were not designed.

Do you really rethink this stuff before sending it, or are you just interested in writing elegant sentences ? You do realize that if you consider everything you see as not enough evidence for design, then nothing can possibly convince you of design, and your position becomes virtually unfalsifiable. If physical constants tuned to about 120 decimal places aren't enough evidence supporting design for your pathetic "standards of evidence", then your position really isn't an honest one.

And here lies the problem of presupposing the existence of a god.

You are making the assumption, that life, and humans, are the result of a goal. And that the universe, the way it exists, was designed for the goal of creating life.

Instead of the very likely possibility, and probability, that life exists, because the parameters of the universe we find ourselves in, is such that life can arise and be sustained.

Please tell us all how you eliminated any of the following:

1. There have been, and will be, billions upon billions of universes, all with varying parameters and conditions. Some of these universes will have conditions that allow life to arise, and others will not.
2. This is the only universe ever to exist, but the parameters and conditions are the only possible way a universe could exist.
3. Your presupposition of the existence of a god has biased you so much, that you are only able to see design, even when it most likely does not exist.

Quote:Furthermore, you can't possibly prove the negative assertion "the universe isn't designed", and thus you have zero observation of "undesigned universes", if such a thing exists.

We don't have to prove the universe wasn't designed. The burden of proof is all yours.

I am not making the claim that the universe was not designed, my position is, that theists have never been able to support their claim, that it was designed. Until you or other theists are able to do so, I will remain unconvinced that it was designed.

I know the following may sound like an argument from authority (although it is not), but how do you explain the very high percentage (close to 80%) of physicists that are atheists? After all, they've dedicated their lives to studying this stuff, and the vast majority of them reject your claim of design.

(November 26, 2020 at 2:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Do you really rethink this stuff before sending it, or are you just interested in writing elegant sentences ? You do realize that if you consider everything you see as not enough evidence for design, then nothing can possibly convince you of design, and your position becomes virtually unfalsifiable. If physical constants tuned to about 120 decimal places aren't enough evidence supporting design for your pathetic "standards of evidence", then your position really isn't an honest one.

That is not true. For instance, back in 2001 physicist Anthony Aguirre examined the universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise.

(November 26, 2020 at 2:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Furthermore, you can't possibly prove the negative assertion "the universe isn't designed", and thus you have zero observation of "undesigned universes", if such a thing exists.

Really? You're into proof and evidence? Here's a proof (one of many) that the universe isn't designed

“ You're into proof and evidence?”



Isn’t that always the irony? Believers want proof and evidence in everything except when it comes their imaginary friend.

(November 27, 2020 at 2:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(November 26, 2020 at 2:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Do you really rethink this stuff before sending it, or are you just interested in writing elegant sentences ? You do realize that if you consider everything you see as not enough evidence for design, then nothing can possibly convince you of design, and your position becomes virtually unfalsifiable. If physical constants tuned to about 120 decimal places aren't enough evidence supporting design for your pathetic "standards of evidence", then your position really isn't an honest one.

That is not true. For instance, back in 2001 physicist Anthony Aguirre examined the universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise.

(November 26, 2020 at 2:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Furthermore, you can't possibly prove the negative assertion "the universe isn't designed", and thus you have zero observation of "undesigned universes", if such a thing exists.

Really? You're into proof and evidence? Here's a proof (one of many) that the universe isn't designed

Klors levels of credulity and butthurt is hilarious

(November 26, 2020 at 5:50 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(November 26, 2020 at 4:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don't see how that follows.  I'm saying that the appearance of the Universe is not evidence for design.  That doesn't mean I can't be convinced that I'm wrong, or that I'm unwilling to consider other lines of evidence.

No pal, that's not what you're saying. Here :

(November 25, 2020 at 4:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were not designed.

And I am really curious on what basis are you relying to affirm such stuff.

(November 26, 2020 at 4:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don't see how that follows.  I'm saying that the appearance of the Universe is not evidence for design.  That doesn't mean I can't be convinced that I'm wrong, or that I'm unwilling to consider other lines of evidence.

Again, you asserted that this universe is more probably undesigned than not. And you need to back this up. Besides, the appearance of the universe is all there is to it. If you reject the appearance of the universe, then you reject reality, plain and simple.

Consider again, the following weak rebuttal :

"the appearance of all people around me doing stuff similar to mine, behaving like myself, etc. isn't evidence of other minds. That doesn't mean I can't be convinced that I'm wrong"

It's not hard to see now how asinine this reasoning is. Now replace people with nature.

Abundant appearances of people are indicative of...... actual people.
Abundant appearances of design are indicative of...... you guessed it, actual design.

(November 26, 2020 at 4:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Be honest yourself.  You pulled that '120 decimal places' out of your bum, didn't you?  You can say - we're all friends here.

But which physical constants do you mean?  If it's all of them, then you'll need to demonstrate that an infinitesimally different value for, say, the decay rate of cobalt58 would preclude the existence of the universe. If you mean only some of them, then you'll need to explain why the changes that HAVE occurred haven't destroyed the universe.

You dare questioning my honesty ? The "120 decimal places" thing is real. It's actually more than that: the cosmological constant measured today is around 10^(-122). Here, check it yourself:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3105.pdf

If it were not that small, stars, and thus life, would not be able to form. Now you shamelessly think with your full cognitive power that this stuff isn't indicative of design, but actually more evidence that the universe looks exactly as if it weren't designed. Like, really.... ?

(November 26, 2020 at 4:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm not asserting anything or attempting to prove anything at all. I'm saying that your claim that simple observation of the universe must directly lead to the conclusion that God exists is just bloody silly.

You favored the probability that our universe isn't designed, which is again, an assertion. Overall, The beauty of the sunset and nature in general  leads to god for intellectually honest people. Asking for ((((evidence)))) when you have all this, around you, is just bloody silly.

---

(November 26, 2020 at 4:38 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: If (and it's a big if) the universe was designed, then it was not designed with human life in mind.
Most of the universe would kill us in a second, too hot, too cold, vacuum, toxic, radiation etc.

The abundance of bad stuff doesn't explain away fine tuning. If one finds a microship inside a volcano, it surely warrants a whole semconductor chip manufacturing company with thousands of employees.

Despite that the atheist thinks fine-tuned constants warrant zero employee.

So you're resorting to lies kloro. I'd say I'm surprised except for the fact that's all you've ever done on these fora.

---

(November 26, 2020 at 6:15 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(November 26, 2020 at 6:05 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Beauty has NOTHING to do with design or fine tuning.  Beauty is a human response to certain sensory inputs and patterns.  It is in the eye of the beholder, and not something objective.

Is the existence of love, pleasure, pain evidence of design?  No, they are responses that humans have evolved to experience.

Evolution says that the world wasn't designed for us, but rather we evolved to be a part of the world.  

I believe that a firm grasp of science is the most instructive element to a religious understanding.  Read a book on evolution sometime.  I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth".

For the gazillionth time, evolution doesn't explain away fine-tuning. You can describe all the processes you want that led to what we see, that doesn't negate a designer who intended all along for the universe to devolve into its present form -through these processes.

Even if the universe were finely tuned (fact: it is not), that would have no bearing on evolution. Evolution and fine tuning have no relation to each other.

You would have as much validity if you were arguing that evolution had to explain the LBW rule.

It's a rather psychological phenomenon that theists are unaware of the fact that they are spreading misinformation, especially when their thoughts are so tethered to that which is untrue. It must be quite the burden to differentiate between what rational people are calling falsehoods while attempting to maintain a mental hold on what isn't rational.

Because I’m not quoting that text wall:

@Klorophyll

Quote:This sentence is ridiculous, lady. You can't prove that rock formation or snowflakes aren't designed. That's a negative assertion.

Are you actively working at being this wrong or does it just come to you naturally? Science has already explained how snowflakes and rock formations form naturally. Do you contest that fact? Go ahead. I’d love to hear that.

Quote:Describing no matter how exhaustively the formation of a snowflake doesn't explain away the intervention of a supreme being. What makes you assert that a god wouldn't include all the things you cited in some bigger or lengthier design scheme anyway?

And as I pointed out to you in our first conversation on this argument months ago, you’re just blatantly equivocating on the word ‘design’ here. Your rebuttal is an explicit equivocation fallacy. You have to fix this and try again. I’ll wait.

I suppose that if Kloro were shown an empty top hat and then the magician produced a rabbit from the hat, he would conclude that rabbit spontaneously materialized inside the hat.

Because, apparently, simply seeing something is sufficient to determine how that thing occurred.

Boru