(March 6, 2021 at 8:03 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I'm dishonest?  I said two hydrogen atoms constituting complexity, treating hydrogen atoms as atomic as they were at one time and still are today to many.  Upon your pointing out the technical flaw, I rephrased it as two elementary particles, no matter how you care to define them, and that is what you have been replying to for several posts.  For you to pretend that I hadn't clarified my point and was still defending hydrogen as an elementary particle just makes you a dishonest twat.  You have been focusing on the question of elementary particlehood as if that were the point and as if you didn't know it wasn't the point because of my explicitly pointing it out.  Now, for you to accuse me of dishonesty after you've repeatedly tried to pretend I hadn't is the utmost in bullshit and lies.

Answer the point or concede the point.  This "hydrogen being an elementary particle is essential to your point" is a bunch of crap.  I've already said otherwise.

Okay. Fair enough. It's progress of a kind that you acknowledged hydrogen is not simple. Now you say : two isolated elementary particles are not an indication of complexity. Well, this is not the observable state of affairs, no one ever saw isolated elementary particles floating in some vacuum somewhere in the universe. We have 118 chemical elements, each with their own properties and their subatomic particles. All matter we know exists is a combination of these, which in turn contain simpler components -not the simplest-. Now, do you think all that is not indicative of -at least- a highly skillful designer, whereas, at the same time, you acknowledge that relatively simple mental operations leading to a watch do point to an intelligent agent....?

(March 6, 2021 at 11:20 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Now, do you think all that is not indicative of -at least- a highly skillful designer......?

Simply, it's not.

As much as you want to take this god puzzle piece and attempt to squeeze it into the pieces already naturally arranged, it just does not work.

Design is a post hoc observation. You can call anything “design “. Rocks are designed to be heavy and static. Birds are designed to fly. Eyes are designed to see. Stars are designed to burn to provide energy to birds who use it to fly.

It’s big fucking flawed teleological construct that has no basis in natural laws which emerge from probabilistic state of universe at very basic level.

(February 27, 2021 at 2:30 pm)Five Wrote: I actually really like to hear discussions of the Watchmaker argument and picking it apart. So, it's an appeal to the irreducible complexity argument in biology, where there are some things in nature that are so complex they must have an intelligent designer. Yet the analogy doesn't work at all. 

Because in the example, you're walking along a beach and find a watch. Based on your prior knowledge of watches and comparing it to the simplicity of the sand around it, supposedly, you can assume the watch was created by an intelligent designer. But that's a contrast that hinges on "things made by a human" and "things not made by a human". So, when making the analogy fit with "things created by God" the answer is "everything." 

 The complexity of a thing doesn't actually matter.

Yes, & no. Design has perfectly naturalistic explanations. All living organisms are products of design; natural selection. Every biological organism alive today is the product of millions of years of 'design.'

I think Dawkins used the analogy of puddles being perfectly designed for the holes they fill. Each puddle perfectly matches the shape of the hole. Dawkins is usually not very good at philosophy, but I think that's an excellent analogy.

Bu I would go further and say that since the very laws of nature, of matter & biology, seem almost intended for this end, we can say the universe has meaning & purpose beyond beyond what pure materialism is willing to admit.

There you go imagining things again.

(March 7, 2021 at 3:02 am)Seax Wrote: I think Dawkins used the analogy of puddles being perfectly designed for the holes they fill. Each puddle perfectly matches the shape of the hole. Dawkins is usually not very good at philosophy, but I think that's an excellent analogy.

...I can't. I simply can't.

(March 7, 2021 at 7:29 am)Five Wrote:

(March 7, 2021 at 3:02 am)Seax Wrote: I think Dawkins used the analogy of puddles being perfectly designed for the holes they fill. Each puddle perfectly matches the shape of the hole. Dawkins is usually not very good at philosophy, but I think that's an excellent analogy.

...I can't. I simply can't.

I know right?

(March 6, 2021 at 10:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Rehashing your initial thread post after criticizing participants hardly qualifies as engaging. Do better.

It's like you're not even here, reading the thread. Klo was asking "How is sand simple?" I answered by illustrating that if he understood how analogies worked, he'd see the answer to his question. Sand is simple in the context of the comparison. Don't tell me to do better when you're the one who's lost.

You're not going to get Kloro to understand this one, he's had the talk many times. Simply put, he cannot see the deficiency in the argument because he strongly believes in the truth of it's conclusion.

(March 7, 2021 at 7:33 am)Five Wrote:

(March 6, 2021 at 10:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Rehashing your initial thread post after criticizing participants hardly qualifies as engaging. Do better.

It's like you're not even here, reading the thread. Klo was asking "How is sand simple?" I answered by illustrating that if he understood how analogies worked, he'd see the answer to his question. Sand is simple in the context of the comparison. Don't tell me to do better when you're the one who's lost.

I don't think you understand analogies either given your condescending attitude towards my questions, aaaand this little dishonest move: You called it an argument, now, you changed it to analogy.

So... tell me more about who's lost.?

---

(March 6, 2021 at 11:25 pm)Eleven Wrote: Simply, it's not.

As much as you want to take this god puzzle piece and attempt to squeeze it into the pieces already naturally arranged, it just does not work.

Okay. So, presumably, human designed machines and the way they are combined are not indicative of an intelligent agent-us ? And don't tell me you saw manufacturers and all, it's not like you have to see every machine's manufacturer to call it a machine.

That's why I always stop there and declare that it's a matter of honesty... they tell me it's poisoning the well... No, it's not. You are reaching two different conclusions based on the same criteria : complexity. You either say you don't accept the criteria, or you really are dishonest. Go cleanse your wells..

---

(March 7, 2021 at 3:02 am)Seax Wrote: Yes, & no. Design has perfectly naturalistic explanations. All living organisms are products of design; natural selection. Every biological organism alive today is the product of millions of years of 'design.'

Great. So what..?

Shooting down a bird has a perfectly naturalistic explanation : a bullet penetrated his body with high impact and perforated critical organs. This natural explanation still doesn't dispense with the need of an agent-a hunter who intently directed the bullet towards the target. Disagree?