The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Apollo]

A hodgepodge of words is a hodgepodge of words regardless of who says it.  You can take any arbitrary position and defend it without having to actually prove it existentially.  Existentialism without staying within the parameters of laws of nature is like talking about building a soccer field with water. Sure, you can do it. With words alone.  Which is what people used to do some centuries ago when they didn't know shit.

You could split moon just by talk.  You could ride a flying mule just by talk.  All it ever took was talk –– it's just that flying horses or moon splitting are now kinda universally silly talk (well, except for Muslims) –– it has now been replaced by "design" and "fine tuning", but underneath it is just a modern spin of that same talk that completely ignores the nature and creates a rabbit hole of vague, obfuscating verbiage rehashed through misplaced ontology.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm going to deal with this in reverse order because the main problem is that the latter argument, that the universe is likely designed because it looks designed is the main problem.  I noted in an earlier definition you gave for design that you had expanded it to the point that it included things which, in the colloquial sense, did not actually exhibit design in the sense you were implying.  Your definition also fit out-of-place artifacts which look like they were designed by an agent, but actually were the result of natural processes.  

Some artifacts are the result of natural processes.... so what? Is the understanding of natural processes an antithesis to design ? This is an argument from personal incredulity, an opponent of design obviously cannot conceive of design through long term processes of infinitesimal improvements, and thinks that this implies there is no designer...

This is the main obstacle in any design argument, defining design, and specifically what the indicators of design are, such that they don't yield false positives.  William Dembski has written  at length on the problem and is the foremost proponent of a framework which claims to be able to identify design.  Unfortunately his work is terribly flawed and faulty.  The result is that you can't establish premise #1 of your argument that there are clear aspects of design in the universe or in biological life forms, and if anything, the argument is much stronger in the case of biological life forms.  In particular, if you are suggesting that fine-tuning of the universe is the aspect which leads to a conclusion of design, one's argument gets recast as:

1. The universe appears fine-tuned which would be clear evidence of design, regardless of the process which led to it.
2. Design, as previously defined, is more probably than not the product of conscious, deliberate decision.
3. It is not necessarily the case that the universe is fine-tuned, as the universe's constants could have happened by chance.
4. If the universe is not designed as in 3, then it would still appear fine-tuned.
5. Therefore the appearance of fine-tuning is not evidence of conscious, deliberate decision.

The main problem is that premise #1 is not true.  With the failure of the design part of your argument, the prior main argument fails as well.

First of all, you didn't give any improved definition of design we can work with, and so this argument is unintelligible. If we adopt the definition I previously gave, then nature clearly displays aspects of adaptation of means to end, and this at least implies conscious design,.Besides, if we, as conscious agents, can't even reproduce some of nature's achievements, how come one can posit it all got there by blind coincidence.....
Second, I don't see how the argument from design becomes "much stronger" with biological life forms, it's not like opponents to this argument figured out how to come up with rocks and trees ex nihilo so they can move on to the last remaining theist fortress of life forms.

Or, as the Qur'an says : "Here is a parable set forth! listen to it! Those on whom, besides Allah, ye call, cannot create (even) a fly, if they all met together for the purpose! and if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition!"

In essence, we never managed to design anything, human machines are mere more or less clever combinations of existent matter.

Now, as to the first, it's important to note that an argument based upon analogy is neither inductive nor deductive and largely functions as a pedagogical tool rather than an argument.  The basis of an argument from analogy is that something displays similarity in aspects which it is known, therefore it's probable that said similarity extends to things that are unknown.  This is not a reliable assumption.  I can note that a car rests on four tires and argue from analogy that a three-legged stool likely has four legs because, after observing the first three legs, I conclude that the parallel between it and a car also having three points of rest also extends to it likewise having four points of rest, or four legs.  In essence, an analogy depends upon a form of uniformitarianism in our assumptions which we have no justification for assuming.  Thus it isn't probative of the probability of an analogical thing sharing a trait that hasn't yet been confirmed.  Some do, some don't -- and there is no information present to determine which class the analogized object belongs to, so the argument, as such, does not lead to a definite conclusion.  It's a non sequitur.

I never claimed these arguments lead to a certain conclusion. But again, arguments for other minds and for the external world don't, either. An argument based on analogy is clearly inferential. In the case of other minds, we work with a very very small sample (Me, one person) and reach a very ambitious conclusion : Everyone I observe who resembles me physically has a mind. And we are usually very confident in our conclusion.

And what about the external world, you literally have no example of an external world built within in, but you firmly believe there is one. Why didn't you request more samples of that ?

In your case, the analogy is so weak -- basically non-existent -- that one might be charitably inclined to agree that there appear indications of a mind behind the universe, there is little reason to suspect any mind behind it has the properties of a god rather than say aliens or a natural order which we are not yet cognizant of existing.  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes this point in its argument from design article concerning a similar analogy, to that of Nicolas Caputo in an election in which cheating was involved.  In the case of Caputo, we have an agent who possessed the capabilities to bring about the results that the inference of design in that case was based.  In the case of other minds, we have an agent with confirmed similar capabilities.  In the case of God, we have no such exemplar.  If we don't know that things like gods are even possible, it makes no sense to conclude that they are probable based upon a design inference, as that would be a subtle form of begging the question, assuming the possible existence of God, to argue about the possible existence of God.  In any argument there are primary premises, typically those presented, and auxiliary premises, most of which end up being unspoken.  In the case of other minds, one primary premise is that minds, namely ours, which are capable of certain things, exist, at least one.  That becomes an auxiliary premise in the design argument if one is arguing that there is an analogy there, and says that gods exist, or, at least, are possible.  The fact of it being an auxiliary, unstated premise doesn't make it any less necessary to the conclusion for it being unspoken.  And when that part of the analogy is brought out, it's clear that either one is begging the question (circularity), or one's analogy is a false one (gods aren't analogous to humans).

Your objection as I understand it is, there is no guarantee this mind behind the universe has the properties of a god. But if this mind is not an uncaused cause, then you have a problem of infinite regress, that only stops with the mind which actually possesses these properties. Natural order isn't really a good solution to our problem, invoking some yet to discover mysterious order warrants itself a designer.

You are the one who invokes human designed objects as evidence of design in nature, dipshit. You can’t even agree with yourself on which definition of design you’re going with depending on the day. Quit before all your integrity is lost, guy.

Now you're resorting to lies ? I clearly stated that aspects of adaptation of means to ends around us are the evidence of design, not human designed objects.

So, let me try again : what's your definition of design ?

Lies? Don’t force me to dig up old quotes of you appealing to chairs and buildings and such as evidence for design. I mean I will, but I don’t feel like it right now, lol.

[GrandizerII]

Now you're resorting to lies ? I clearly stated that aspects of adaptation of means to ends around us are the evidence of design, not human designed objects.

Which (if true) can happen via natural processes without appealing to a divine being as a necessary explanation. So it's a stretch to say "aspects of adaptation of means to ends" are evidence of a divine mind (which is really what you're trying to get at). We know what science has to say about the formation of things like rocks and mountains and about the evolution of life on earth in the form of bacteria and plants and animals and such. Whether there is some God ultimately at the starting point of the causal chain that eventually leads to these formations and variety of life on earth is a different subject of debate. There is nothing from what we do know with a fairly good degree of certainty that there has to be such a God, especially one involved in actively designing these things over a long period of time rather than just (for example) sustaining things in existence.

Remember the broad type of people you're having discourse on this topic with (namely, atheists), and also try to avoid begging the question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Has anyone else noticed that 'existence is evidence of design' IS an attempt at a logical proof of God? Kloroflop is simply stating it informally.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

All the minds we know with a reasonable level of certainty to exist based on observation are associated with brains. It does not necessarily follow that if embodied minds exist, disembodied ones must also exist. There's a disconnect. Literally, since you're imagining minds disconnected from bodies. It is perfectly honest and coherent to accept the existence of embodied minds without also accepting the existence of disembodied ones. It's like saying if you accept the existence of humans, you must also accept the existence of Sasquatch, else you're dishonest or incoherent.

One small reminder, I never presented the full case for why the analogy for other minds is equivalent to that for god. The part explaining that in Plantinga's work is highly technical. I am merely conveying the underlying intuitions of what I understand so far. Roughly speaking, he argues that the objections to the telological argument are exactly the same objections to analogy for other minds.

So we're dishonest and incoherent if we don't agree with an argument you didn't even make? Even if we were aware of Platinga's entire argument and it's actually correct; it's poisoning the well to snarl at us for being incoherent and dishonest if we don't fully understand an obtruse argument. If those are Platinga's words, he should know better...and if they're yours, you should know better too.

---

A finely tuned universe that is so because it was designed and created necessitates a finely-tuned Creator. An omnipotent universe Creator could create ANY universe imaginable, the possibilities are literally infinite; the odds that we would have a Creator that made this exact universe is one in infinity.

[Simon Moon]

Klorophill, do you know what kind of universe would be a lot more compelling as evidence for a god?

It would be a universe that looks exactly as if there is no way to could bring forth and sustain life, yet life would exist anyway. Your god is powerful enough to do that, right?

I mean, if he really wanted to, he could have us living on the surface of a star, and thriving, right? Or is this the only universe he could have created?

Yet instead, he chose to create a universe that looks as if it does not seem to need him at all. And to make things even worse, he needs theists like you, to come up with flawed arguments (personal incredulity seems to be your go to), to us nonbelievers.

Not a very impressive deity you got there...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Klorofail wrote:

No,pal. 

Called it!

Boru

[R00tKiT]

I don't have time to respond to the rest at this time, but since you've raised the point multiple times, I have to ask, in the interest of clarity, what ends you are suggesting the universe is clearly adapted toward achieving?  The universe isn't in any sense adapted toward the end of being itself, so its fine-tuning seems an unlikely meaning.  If you are claiming the universe appears adapted for the existence of life, then you are simply wrong.  Life is opportunistic, in as much as it is clearly defined -- which it isn't. 

The universe may have for an end making life possible. Whether life is opportunistic or not is irrelevant. We really are here, and we should account for that. Randomness and blind processes can't be the right answer, they're not even an answer. A random process still needs a starting point, an initial value.

I might be speaking in a vacuum here, but the idea should be clear : you can complain all day about how miserable the universe is and how countless stars explode aimlessly etc., but the point is, it's fine tuned enough for you to be able to complain. And if we are the ends the universe was adapted towards achieving -not stars , then stars exploding around us really shouldn't be a problem.

This is why I asked you twice, neither time of which you responded, what your beliefs in the relation between fine-tuning and evolution are.  If you truly believe they are related, demonstrate how.  Otherwise I'm justified in dismissing the whole ill-defined mess.

Evolution is a very very small subset of fine-tuned "processes", it only accounts for biological life forms, after all. 

If I accept that some all powerful being exists, then:
A.  There is no logic that dictates that a creator would not or could not leave its creation without guidance.
B.  There are plenty of other religious modalities that do offer guidance to the creations besides the Abrahamic 3.  You just may not understand how they work.
C.  What we (humans) would expect from an all powerful god is irrelevant.  By definition, it would be impossible for us to comprehend such a being.

A. There is actually. A just God, by definition of justness, cannot logically leave its creation without guidance. If the smallest particle is governed by strict physical laws, how come humanity can be left without any law whatsoever;

B. I think we disagree on the definition of religions. Not any set of idioms and ancient stories can be labeled religion. Besides, belief in a unique God does appear more sensible, more parsimonious, it should be the most tenable candidate for the "right belief".

C. Why would you try to compehend an all powerful being ? We either receive verbatim instructions to follow from such a being or we don't, that's it. All we're doing here is logical deductions from this being "properties", nothing more.

A hodgepodge of words is a hodgepodge of words regardless of who says it.  You can take any arbitrary position and defend it without having to actually prove it existentially.  Existentialism without staying within the parameters of laws of nature is like talking about building a soccer field with water. Sure, you can do it. With words alone.  Which is what people used to do some centuries ago when they didn't know shit.

You could split moon just by talk.  You could ride a flying mule just by talk.  All it ever took was talk –– it's just that flying horses or moon splitting are now kinda universally silly talk (well, except for Muslims) –– it has now been replaced by "design" and "fine tuning", but underneath it is just a modern spin of that same talk that completely ignores the nature and creates a rabbit hole of vague, obfuscating verbiage rehashed through misplaced ontology.

Why would splitting the moon and riding Buraqs be so far stretched if an all powerful God truly exists ? As I said, repeatedly, it's not up to you or to your personal preferences how God will reveal his message.

Whether there is some God ultimately at the starting point of the causal chain that eventually leads to these formations and variety of life on earth is a different subject of debate.

It is exactly the subject of debate. An atheist thinks that, because we figured out some of the processes that took place along this causal chain, we're free to dispense with its starting point. It's really, really, really stupid.

So we're dishonest and incoherent if we don't agree with an argument you didn't even make? Even if we were aware of Platinga's entire argument and it's actually correct; it's poisoning the well to snarl at us for being incoherent and dishonest if we don't fully understand an obtruse argument. If those are Platinga's words, he should know better...and if they're yours, you should know better too.

The argument I presented is complete, and so far valid, nobody raised a complaint about any premise. Plantinga's full argument describes the whole scheme of weak analogy to show why other minds exists, something nobody asked for here. Besides, most modern papers in the field of philosophy of religion are technical.

And no, nothing is "obstruse", you just have some homework to do - I won't do it for you.

Klorophill, do you know what kind of universe would be a lot more compelling as evidence for a god?

It would be a universe that looks exactly as if there is no way to could bring forth and sustain life, yet life would exist anyway. Your god is powerful enough to do that, right?

I mean, if he really wanted to, he could have us living on the surface of a star, and thriving, right? Or is this the only universe he could have created?

Yet instead, he chose to create a universe that looks as if it does not seem to need him at all. And to make things even worse, he needs theists like you, to come up with flawed arguments (personal incredulity seems to be your go to), to us nonbelievers.

Not a very impressive deity you got there...

No, the universe you described is simply unintelligible. Think about this scenario a bit : we live in the midst of absolute chaos and illogical occurences, gigantic stars collide with our planet daily and we just survive! Yes, we will feel more privileged. But, well.. the universe we have is better than this one, it's intelligible, it really follows laws. And you think this isn't enough....

You're just stuck in some kind of "the grass is always greener in the other side" cognitive trap, whatever universe one would give you, you'll prefer the other, unexistent one. You have the intelligible type, now you want the unintelligible.

[The Grand Nudger]

The universe may have for an end making life possible. Whether life is opportunistic or not is irrelevant. We really are here, and we should account for that. Randomness and blind processes can't be the right answer, they're not even an answer. A random process still needs a starting point, an initial value.

Well, they could be - there's no specific reason that randomness and blind processes couldn't yield a given outcome.  I don't see why it would matter to us, though, since we're not talking about the products of randomness or blind processes.

[Apollo]

A hodgepodge of words is a hodgepodge of words regardless of who says it.  You can take any arbitrary position and defend it without having to actually prove it existentially.  Existentialism without staying within the parameters of laws of nature is like talking about building a soccer field with water. Sure, you can do it. With words alone.  Which is what people used to do some centuries ago when they didn't know shit.

You could split moon just by talk.  You could ride a flying mule just by talk.  All it ever took was talk –– it's just that flying horses or moon splitting are now kinda universally silly talk (well, except for Muslims) –– it has now been replaced by "design" and "fine tuning", but underneath it is just a modern spin of that same talk that completely ignores the nature and creates a rabbit hole of vague, obfuscating verbiage rehashed through misplaced ontology.

Why would splitting the moon and riding Buraqs be so far stretched if an all powerful God truly exists ? As I said, repeatedly, it's not up to you or to your personal preferences how God will reveal his message.

Because it is impossible and hence clearly a lie. Why is it impossible? Because we can rule it out using laws of nature. If you insist some law of nature exist that would allow it then you'd need a proof for it. You know, the data and math and all that good stuff.