The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

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.

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.

You are then asked to prove two things:

1/ That the set of "undesigned universes" is nonempty.

2/ That our observable universe belongs to this set.

Good luck.

Some things appear designed and are designed, like cars and buildings, and other things appear designed but are not, like rock formations and snowflakes.

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

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?

Therefore, the appearance of design is an invalid reason to conclude design. Got anything else?

The appearance of human beings doing stuff around you obviously got you to believe in other minds. The appearance of design should normally get you to something. If you think the latter reason is invalid, then you should consider the former invalid too, and act on this consideration. After that I'll let you pick a psychiatric hospital of your choosing where you can write more on this matter, and on solipsism.

So, for intellectually coherent people, this appearance does lead to a designer, at least in probabilistic terms. For the others, I frankly have nothing else.

Show me some of this 'sugge4stive evidence'. Because so far, all I've even been provided with from theists (you included), is fallacious arguments; like, argument from design and argument from ignorance.

My acceptance of the existence of other minds is a pragmatic position I take, because that is all that I am presented with.

I am not presented with anything like the existence of other minds, for a god. Again, all I am presented with is reality. Theists claim this reality is due to some god or another, but they are unable to support their claim. 

I still can't fathom what would convince one of design more than what he actually sees. We know enough about our own anatomy, the unlikelihood of life, the fine-tuning of physical constants, etc. to demand a serious explanation. If one can't see precision and design in precisely tuned formulas then where can he possibly see it ?

Is this an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity ? Not at all, we're simply faced with phenomena we can either ignore or explan adequately by inference. And it turns out we use the latter even when there are less good reasons to do so.

Any argument supporting the existence of other minds is essentially analogical. Now the famous teleological arguments are analogical, too. If you have enough belief in analogy to behave as if other minds exists -which you do, then rejecting the teleological argument for the exact same flaws that arguments for other minds have is clearly a dishonest move.

No, we receive input that some believe has the appearance of design. But all I am ever presented with by theists, to demonstrate that it is actual design, are fallacious teleological arguments.

As I explained above, "actual design" greatly resembles the true scotsman in this context. We act on appearances every single time, atheists suspend this principle when dealing with nature, that's dishonest.

Clearly producing something adapted to an end requires effort. The eye, for example, curiously resembles a designed camera. Now, natural selection isn't really a trump card, it's only a process as far as we know, and processes do not and cannot explain away design, because they can simply be part of a more complicated "master plan".

(1) It's clear that adaptation of means to ends points to a designer.
(2) The human eye is adapted to an end.
(3) The human eye is designed.

Premise (1) is analogical, it has the same force as any statement we take as true by analogy, the cost of rejecting it is exactly that of rejecting other minds, the existence of other countries you never went to, etc. And again, natural selection and mutation aren't valid objections or alternative explanations in any way for (2). If (1) and (2) are valid, then one is forced to accept (3).

So...

Your admission that a device (or other scientific method) for detecting gods may be beyond human ability, should just be another reason why belief in gods is irrational.

Nome one other claim, other than the existence of a god, would you accept, without demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic?

There are many, many claims I accept without all that. Take the existence of Sierra Leone, a country I never set foot on. I have no falsifiable evidence, or sound logic conclusively proving its existence. Yet I am certain it's there.

The Eddington experiment, one of the first test confirming general relativity, was conducted by two teams, each of two people. Yes, what resembles eyewitness testimony from four people is enough for the rest of the human population to accept GR.
Curiously, when it comes to a designer, fine tuned constants to dozens of decimals become inadequate evidence........

You could convince me that a so called prophet had an experience. Convincing me it was a god responsible for said experience, would in fact require demonstrating the existence of a god.

But I am not sure how you could ever eliminate every natural and mundane explanation, from being less likely than a god.

I agree. And that's why any discussion about prophets before establishing the existence of god is a waste of time.

If a just god exists, then it's possible to eliminate some mundane explanations, like famous figures of abrahamic religions being conmen. The justness of god logically implies that he did leave us with some kind of instructions to follow the righteous path, prophets claiming the possession of such instructions will be tenable candidates. Also, prophets with "successful careers" are more likely to be genuine, because this just god wouldn't let anyone misguide humanity this brilliantly

Ancient texts (Quran included), fallacious arguments (argument from design, Kalam cosmological argument, ontological argument, etc),  miracle claims, prayer, etc, etc, certainly do not work. So, I am left being unconvinced that gods exist (or there I am in the Matrix), and all you seem to offer are flawed inferences.

The Qur'an for example presupposes throughout the existence of god. The arguments you cited are not - as I explained above, with zero argumentative force. I agree with you on the ontological argument, though.

[zebo-the-fat]

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 Architect Of Fate]

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.

And even if we can live in the universe. That says nothing of why we can

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In short, the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were not designed.

[removed all the bits and bobs not part of Khloro's reply to me]

Do you really rethink this stuff before sending it,

Yes.  I've thought about it for years.

, or are you just interested in writing elegant sentences ?

I'm flattered that you find my sentences elegant. *goes all blushy*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 are then asked to prove two things:

1/ That the set of "undesigned universes" is nonempty.

2/ That our observable universe belongs to this set.

See my previous comment.  I'm not making any claims about the design or non-design of the universe.  I'm saying that you (and I suppose Plantinga) need to do better.

Good luck.

You too.  I hope that infection clears up without surgery.

Boru

[HappySkeptic]

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.

The fine tuning argument is an argument from ignorance.  There is no reason to believe that all fundamental constants of nature are tunable.  i.e., they may very well be required to be as they are, for reason's we haven't determined yet.
For instance, it has been said that the energy balance of the the big-bang had to be precisely tuned, or else the universe would've either flown apart, or collapsed under itself.  However, I have seen theories that force that balance to be maintained.  That dumps a few tens of digits from your fine tuning.

Moreover, if it were true that the universe has apparent fine tuning for the existence of life (not good for life because it isn't, just that life is possible), there are possibilities involving a multiverse, or even an evolution of physical laws.  For instance, if baby universes form from large black holes, and each universe has slightly different properties than the parent, we get natural selection of laws that favor the ability to form large black holes.

The nature of physical laws is a great unknown.  The nature of time itself is a mystery.

But, there is no mystery that is solved by invoking an all-powerful being.  That would just be begging the question for how that being came to be.  Also, we could never know the existence of such a being unless it interacted with the physical universe in ways that could be tested.  If it doesn't, I might as well say that magic created the universe, or that nothingness was a contradiction and this led to something.  

Nothing that we are ignorant about is better explained by invoking an anthropomorphic being that wants our worship.  To me it is a non-sequitur.

[R00tKiT]

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 :

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.

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.

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.... ?

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.

---

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.

[HappySkeptic]

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.

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".

[R00tKiT]

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.

[zebo-the-fat]

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.

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.

[HappySkeptic]

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.