The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Like Paley (among others), he's using human-designed things as what he thinks are evidence for design in other things. Since we know that cars, watches, and electric tin openers are designed, he thinks he's justified in concluding that things like jellyfish, oranges and lawyers are designed.

Boru

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Yeah, I'll consede the 'Lawyers designed' part.

After all, I'm pretty sure it's been proven that Nature abhors that amoung of suck occuring naturally.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Bull fucking shit. It is you who lack evidence not us. Show me a single item in existence today that shows evidence of design by a god.

Oh wait, you can't because you have no evidence. If you did you would be trumpeting it to the high heavens and all your bullshit and lies about not needing evidence for god would be dropped like the nonsense that it is.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

Like Paley (among others), he's using human-designed things as what he thinks are evidence for design in other things. Since we know that cars, watches, and electric tin openers are designed, he thinks he's justified in concluding that things like jellyfish, oranges and lawyers are designed.

Boru

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying no such conclusion can be made.

[R00tKiT]

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.

Evolution couldn't have occurred without fine-tuning. Natural selection depends on a large set of chemical and biological processes that can't be ascribed to coincidence.

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.

And do you answer me without reading what you answer to ? I said, repeatedly, that scientific explanations do not explain away design. Is it that hard for you to imagine a god intending to design mountains through rock formations ? And there is no equivocation on the word 'design", it's just that you and I have different definitions of design.

Design (according to LadyForCamus) : is ........... human design . Defining one word by the same word plus the word human, excellent job.
As a result the lady will automatically accuse anyone who thinks something non human is designed, of equivocation.

Of course you will reject any argument from design if your definition is that narrow. The larger and more accurate definition that should be adopted is: anything that appears to have some adaptation of means to ends.

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.

Equivocation is the use of the same word in multiple sense. I have, however, one unique definition of design, which clearly isn't yours. In short, it's just that my rebuttal doesn't fit your discriminatory definition of the word.

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.

That's simply not true. Two minutes of research online in this subject will tell you that they are mostly harmless because they acquired inactivating mutations , and so most of them can no longer produce actual viruses.

And I am not really into these flawed comparisons with chimpanzees, regardless of which location in our genome. We also share 50% of our genes with bananas, clearly we can't conclude anything.

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.

In this case my brain would be appealing to ignorance. If you can't think of any function or aspect of design in sand and pebbles, it doesn't mean it's not there.

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.

Nope. That's completely false. This flawed understanding of efficiency is the source of all the trouble atheists have with the argument from design. So, read what follows out loud and remember it verbatim : Efficiency is a relevant concern only if we have a problem of limited resources.

An all-powerful god DOES NOT have this problem, the word "waste" is ill-defined because all resources can be rendered unlimited.

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

What competence(arrogance?) you think you have to instruct a deity on how to create a universe ?

[Paleophyte]

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.

That's simply not true. Two minutes of research online in this subject will tell you that they are mostly harmless because they acquired inactivating mutations , and so most of them can no longer produce actual viruses.

Mostly harmless is not harmless. None of which demonstrates any use for these viruses that make up some 8% of our genome. So useless and worse than useless.

And I am not really into these flawed comparisons with chimpanzees, regardless of which location in our genome. We also share 50% of our genes with bananas, clearly we can't conclude anything.

What you're into is immaterial, as is your opinion of what its flaws might be. The similarity of location, mutation, and LTRs in human and chimp DNA can only be explained by common ancestry.

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.

In this case my brain would be appealing to ignorance. If you can't think of any function or aspect of design in sand and pebbles, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Neither does it mean that it is there. You know how the Burden of Proof works. He who makes the absurd claim that this apparently functionless sand grain is Designed gets to provide the evidence. Have fun with that.

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.

Nope. That's completely false. This flawed understanding of efficiency is the source of all the trouble atheists have with the argument from design. So, read what follows out loud and remember it verbatim : Efficiency is a relevant concern only if we have a problem of limited resources.

An all-powerful god DOES NOT have this problem, the word "waste" is ill-defined because all resources can be rendered unlimited.

Efficiency is also a matter of competence. Only a moron makes a pocket watch with a mast and rudder. Design is easy to spot by what it isn't.

The fraction of the universe that intelligent life can survive in is so vanishingly small that only a lack-wit would have built it that way, and only the heirs to the kingdom of imbeciles would worship it.

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

What competence(arrogance?) you think you have to instruct a deity on how to create a universe ?

I'm not instructing any deity. I'd have to believe in them to do that. I'm simply pointing out that a deity doesn't need anything as sloppy as physical constants. A Designed universe doesn't need gravity. Things fall because The Designer Wills them to. All arguments from fine-tuning and design fail because they explicitly admit to physics and biochemistry that no competent deity woud be caught dead soiling its hands with.

[The Architect Of Fate]

That's simply not true. Two minutes of research online in this subject will tell you that they are mostly harmless because they acquired inactivating mutations , and so most of them can no longer produce actual viruses.

Mostly harmless is not harmless. None of which demonstrates any use for these viruses that make up some 8% of our genome. So useless and worse than useless.

And I am not really into these flawed comparisons with chimpanzees, regardless of which location in our genome. We also share 50% of our genes with bananas, clearly we can't conclude anything.

What you're into is immaterial, as is your opinion of what its flaws might be. The similarity of location, mutation, and LTRs in human and chimp DNA can only be explained by common ancestry.

In this case my brain would be appealing to ignorance. If you can't think of any function or aspect of design in sand and pebbles, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Neither does it mean that it is there. You know how the Burden of Proof works. He who makes the absurd claim that this apparently functionless sand grain is Designed gets to provide the evidence. Have fun with that.

Nope. That's completely false. This flawed understanding of efficiency is the source of all the trouble atheists have with the argument from design. So, read what follows out loud and remember it verbatim : Efficiency is a relevant concern only if we have a problem of limited resources.

An all-powerful god DOES NOT have this problem, the word "waste" is ill-defined because all resources can be rendered unlimited.

Efficiency is also a matter of competence. Only a moron makes a pocket watch with a mast and rudder. Design is easy to spot by what it isn't.

The fraction of the universe that intelligent life can survive in is so vanishingly small that only a lack-wit would have built it that way, and only the heirs to the kingdom of imbeciles would worship it.

What competence(arrogance?) you think you have to instruct a deity on how to create a universe ?

I'm not instructing any deity. I'd have to believe in them to do that. I'm simply pointing out that a deity doesn't need anything as sloppy as physical constants. A Designed universe doesn't need gravity. Things fall because The Designer Wills them to. All arguments from fine-tuning and design fail because they explicitly admit to physics and biochemistry that no competent deity woud be caught dead soiling its hands with.

Wow Kloroform strikes out again 

1.Thinks mostly harmless equals useful 

2.Denies the overwhelming evidence for common descent 

3.Thinks we have to show nondesign while he can't show non-man-made objects are designed and think he can just assert function.

4.Thinks he can make up special rules about design that contrast all observed notions of design 

5.Call it arrogant when we use commonsense observations to determine that no real designer would act in a certain way. While hypocritically using his own intuition to insist on design. 

What a clown 

[Nay_Sayer]

Oddly(or not) boreaphyll ignores my proofs. weird.

[Angrboda]

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.

Evolution couldn't have occurred without fine-tuning. Natural selection depends on a large set of chemical and biological processes that can't be ascribed to coincidence.

Who filled your head with such nonsense?

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Evolution couldn't have occurred without fine-tuning. Natural selection depends on a large set of chemical and biological processes that can't be ascribed to coincidence.

Stop lying. We live in a universe without fine tuning, yet we still managee to evolve.