The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[possibletarian]

But one must assume that for creation to have 'fallen' it must have once been in a noticeably better state ?  And that pre-fall at the very least the earth designed specifically for humans was an ideal place to live. If not what would 'good' and 'very good' even mean ?

I agree, that should be the case. But I disagree that an absence of evidence constitutes a falsification. It's like asking if there's evidence in a butterfly that it was once a caterpillar (perhaps there is). But if a change has occurred, by definition, the previous state has been altered, minimized, or eliminated.

I use the "Better Earth" idea to show that pointing at imperfections is not a claim against design. Christianity already accounts for imperfection and believes in design. Christianity could be wrong and imperfection is still not a valid argument.

Neither does it provide evidence that it was so, given the very apparent disconnect between the biblical timeline and geological timeline one must assume that most reasonable people would withhold commitment to the story. That there is no evidence that it was once a better earth, that there were at least three human-like lines, nor does any known timeline support that should cause people to be at the very least cautious in declaring the narrative truthful.

---

The point here: Christianity accounts for imperfection.

So does my space monkey narrative, how should we decide to take one more seriously than the other ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Prospero:  Look at this!  It's perfect!  It must have been designed!

Gildenstern:  What about this odd bit over here?

To better adapt this dialogue to our thread lol:

Theist: This complexity appears designed

Atheist: No because it's not perfect

Theist: No one said it was?

Atheist: Well, I'm going to pretend you did. So you lose.

Is that what anyone is arguing, or is that what you would prefer to argue against?

[polymath257]

It's not wisdom it's psychology. People are not unfiltered perceivers of information―they latch emotional and moral coloring to propositions. Ad hominems exist because people perceive this coloring and interpret information through it: "You're wrong because you're bad; God doesn't exist because he's evil."

God's existence is independent of his goodness; and yet Hell creates more atheists than science. Hence why a thread about design keeps wanting to become a thread about morality. My hypothesis: If we gather data from this forum we'll find a significant correlation between atheists and the "God is evil" narrative (perhaps stronger among ex-Christians) than theists, which believe "God is love."

Humans also attribute agency to things automatically, whether they are really agents or not. My mother likes to name her cars and says they have personalities.

That doesn't mean that they do.

This is relevant because people like to attribute aspects of the universe to agency when there is no actual evidence of agency there. So they tend to default to the concept of a God in a way similar to how we default to seeing faces in clouds.

In claiming the existence of a God, I assume you primarily mean a designer. In that, the question becomes how to distinguish a universe with a designer from one without a designer. More relevantly, how does one distinguish a universe without a designer, but *with* natural laws from one with a designer?

I have yet to see anything that manages to distinguish these possibilities. Complexity certainly does not. Having local environments that are far from the norm does not. Since we don't know how or even whether the basic constants of physics can change, the specific values detected does not.

I am an atheist. I don't believe in a creator of the universe, whether good or evil. I also do not believe in the concept of a supernatural: I think it is ultimately incoherent.

Now, I don't consider the concept of a creator for certain aspects of the universe to be incoherent. For example, it may be that there is a race of high dimensional beings that have learned how to make universes as part of their technology and ours is the result of a high school assignment that was subsequently forgotten.

That is a coherent concept, but I still do not believe it. There is simply no evidence to suggest it is the case.

[John 6IX Breezy]

So does my space monkey narrative, how should we decide to take one more seriously than the other ?

You can take them equally serious. But deciding between them doesn't matter if the Earth isn't designed.

[possibletarian]

So does my space monkey narrative, how should we decide to take one more seriously than the other ?

You can take them equally serious. But deciding between them doesn't matter if the Earth isn't designed.

It does if you are claiming that a deity designed it, or even space aliens you would still need evidence above the narrative, simply claiming that you cannot disprove something adds no useful information at all.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This is relevant because people like to attribute aspects of the universe to agency when there is no actual evidence of agency there. So they tend to default to the concept of a God in a way similar to how we default to seeing faces in clouds.

I agree with you fully. In fact, I vaguely remember research a few years ago in which "noise" was presented to theists and atheists and they were asked to determine which ones had faces. The conclusion was that theists tend to overestimating the presence of faces; but atheists tend to underestimate them.

In other words, a theist might see faces where there are none. But an atheist might miss a face where there is one. So it's important to note there are cliffs on both sides of the aisle. (If I come across the study again I'll link it.)

[polymath257]

This is relevant because people like to attribute aspects of the universe to agency when there is no actual evidence of agency there. So they tend to default to the concept of a God in a way similar to how we default to seeing faces in clouds.

I agree with you fully. In fact, I vaguely remember research a few years ago in which "noise" was presented to theists and atheists and they were asked to determine which ones had faces. The conclusion was that theists tend to overestimating the presence of faces; but atheists tend to underestimate them.

In other words, a theist might see faces where there are none. But an atheist might miss a face where there is one. (If I come across the study again I'll link it.)

I'm curious if a similar dichotomy would be found for finding agency.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nah let's fix this 

Theist I believe for no reason complexity equals design that non-man-made objects are designed

Atheist: It doesn't show any signs of design in fact it looks just the way the undirected process should look not the perfection one would from a god 

Theist: Well .....comes up with a bunch of excuses to as too why it's not perfect. None of which answer the actual objection  

Atheist: Well guess that settles that

---

To better adapt this dialogue to our thread lol:

Theist: This complexity appears designed

Atheist: No because it's not perfect

Theist: No one said it was?

Atheist: Well, I'm going to pretend you did. So you lose.

Is that what anyone is arguing, or is that what you would prefer to argue against?

What he prefers

---

I agree with you fully. In fact, I vaguely remember research a few years ago in which "noise" was presented to theists and atheists and they were asked to determine which ones had faces. The conclusion was that theists tend to overestimating the presence of faces; but atheists tend to underestimate them.

Overestimated according to whom?.

In other words, a theist might see faces where there are none. But an atheist might miss a face where there is one. So it's important to note there are cliffs on both sides of the aisle. (If I come across the study again I'll link it.)

No theists see faces where they want to see them. Atheists rightly demand people delusionally claiming they see faces go about actually demonstrating their there. So no there is no sides to the aisle.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Atheists rightly demand people delusionally claiming they see faces go about actually demonstrating their there. So no there is no sides to the aisle.

Ironically, autism and atheism have an interesting relationship. You can sit back and call things delusions arbitrarily; or be mindful that your brain plays a more intimate role in how you think and reason than you realize.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Atheists rightly demand people delusionally claiming they see faces go about actually demonstrating their there. So no there is no sides to the aisle.

Ironically, autism and atheism have an interesting relationship. You can sit back and call things delusions arbitrarily; or be mindful that your brain plays a more intimate role in how you think and reason than you realize.

Nah theism is more like autism. Nah I'll call things delusions on the fact they are and then i can ignore your vapid attempts at pretending were on an equal footing.(spoilers were not )