The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The absurd need for a God or Gods. Coming to a lamprey-like religulous establishment near you.

[Ranjr]

Creates thread about absurd need for logical proofs.  Appeals to an invalid logical proof.

[Simon Moon]

So, to wrap up.

Design can not be asserted, it has to be demonstrated.

Just because something 'looks' designed, does not mean it is.

OP asserts design, but does not demonstrate how he detects design, other than, "I presuppose a god that designs things exists. Therefore, design exists. Therefore, when I see something that I can't explain, other than my presupposed god is responsible for its design. Therefore, a god exists".

OP us unable to detect a problem with this line of 'reasoning'.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So, to wrap up.

Design can not be asserted, it has to be demonstrated.

Just because something 'looks' designed, does not mean it is.

OP asserts design, but does not demonstrate how he detects design, other than, "I presuppose a god that designs things exists. Therefore, design exists. Therefore, when I see something that I can't explain, other than my presupposed god is responsible for its design. Therefore, a god exists".

OP us unable to detect a problem with this line of 'reasoning'.

And comparing design to other minds is silly

[Deesse23]

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

Being gullible and ignorant helps a lot too!

[R00tKiT]

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.

Many things that were thought to be useless or "stupid" in our body turned out to have a role. Calling an organism "stupid design" is an outright appeal to ignorance, where you simply don't know why things are designed the way they are, but still insist they're stupid. Stupid people usually do that.......

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.

Even if something explains 100% why physical constants are the way they are, chances are the explanation itself will contain aspects of fine-tuning, we will always have this regress of explanations with regards to why reality is intelligible, and unless you invoke a necessary designer, you get nowhere.

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.

And how these billions of universes answer regress of causes? Are they eternal? Modern physics already excludes that. If they aren't, then they couldn't have created themselves, is it ?

2. This is the only universe ever to exist, but the parameters and conditions are the only possible way a universe could exist.

This assertion is vacuous. Whether it's the only possible way or not, it's still a way, a long, tedious way, the precision of which demands explanation outside the universe itself.

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.

Again, you have zero observation of undesigned things. How exactly, then, do you make the difference between designed and undesigned things -without, of course, restricting the scope of design to human machines.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Again, you have zero observation of undesigned things. How exactly, then, do you make the difference between designed and undesigned things -without, of course, restricting the scope of design to human machines.

I think it’s more fair to say that we have observations of designed things and observations of things which may or may not be designed.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Again, you have zero observation of undesigned things. How exactly, then, do you make the difference between designed and undesigned things -without, of course, restricting the scope of design to human machines.

I think it’s more fair to say that we have observations of designed things and observations of things which may or may not be designed.

Boru

More like things he asserts are designed. The fact there are designed things does not demonstrate that all things are designed. Human machines are only accepted as designed because we observe the designer (US). I have no reason to believe outside of human constructs anything else is designed.

[Paleophyte]

Many things that were thought to be useless or "stupid" in our body turned out to have a role. Calling an organism "stupid design" is an outright appeal to ignorance, where you simply don't know why things are designed the way they are, but still insist they're stupid.

We know what endogenous retroviruses (ERV) are. They're not simply useless, they're downright dangerous. Kindly explain why we have them. While you're at it, explain why we have 99% of the same ERV that chimpanzees do. In the same locations, with the same mutations, and the same LTR lead-ins and lead-outs.

Again, you have zero observation of undesigned things. How exactly, then, do you make the difference between designed and undesigned things -without, of course, restricting the scope of design to human machines.

Argument by assertion. How novel. How utterly wrong. As you stroll along William Paley's beach you'll notice a pocket watch and go, "Wow! That must have been designed!" You'll ignore all the sand and pebbles and waves because your brain recognizes them as lacking either function or design.

---

I think it’s more fair to say that we have observations of designed things and observations of things which may or may not be designed.

No, we have reasonable observation of things that lack design. Design is based upon efficient function. Anybody arguing from inefficient function is arguing for an incompetent Designer. Unless god has a penchant for entropy and black holes this universe is exceptionally poorly designed.

---

Even if something explains 100% why physical constants are the way they are, chances are the explanation itself will contain aspects of fine-tuning...

The argument from fine-tuning is self-defeating. What competent Deity uses physical constants in the first place?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Many things that were thought to be useless or "stupid" in our body turned out to have a role. Calling an organism "stupid design" is an outright appeal to ignorance, where you simply don't know why things are designed the way they are, but still insist they're stupid.

We know what endogenous retroviruses (ERV) are. They're not simply useless, they're downright dangerous. Kindly explain why we have them. While you're at it, explain why we have 99% of the same ERV that chimpanzees do. In the same locations, with the same mutations, and the same LTR lead-ins and lead-outs.

Again, you have zero observation of undesigned things. How exactly, then, do you make the difference between designed and undesigned things -without, of course, restricting the scope of design to human machines.

Argument by assertion. How novel. How utterly wrong. As you stroll along William Paley's beach you'll notice a pocket watch and go, "Wow! That must have been designed!" You'll ignore all the sand and pebbles and waves because your brain recognizes them as lacking either function or design.

---

I think it’s more fair to say that we have observations of designed things and observations of things which may or may not be designed.

No, we have reasonable observation of things that lack design. Design is based upon efficient function. Anybody arguing from inefficient function is arguing for an incompetent Designer. Unless god has a penchant for entropy and black holes this universe is exceptionally poorly designed.

---

Even if something explains 100% why physical constants are the way they are, chances are the explanation itself will contain aspects of fine-tuning...

The argument from fine-tuning is self-defeating. What competent Deity uses physical constants in the first place?

Hilarious how he accuses people of arguments from ignorance when that's his whole case. Not to mention if we're not allowed to call I stupid he's not allowed to call it useful either. But note he never actually comes up with a reason those things are useful anyway, And indeed why does god need physical constants? Those only make sense in a universe that has to be a certain way. A god could simply will the universe to work regardless.