Fine Tuning

[Eudaimonist]

Evidence?

The burden of evidence is on you to show otherwise.

It is clear that laws in the legal sense need a lawgiver. We have experience with that in human society.

It is only equivocating on this meaning of "law" that scientific laws are seen as needing a "lawgiver" in some straightforward logical or definitional sense. Laws in science are a description of regularities seen in nature, and not "laws" in the legal sense.

So, that is just an equivocation, and a tiresome one.

What silly game?

The demand for examples when you immediately rule out any examples worth giving. It would be like me demanding of you that you provide examples of the existence of other monotheistic Supreme Beings in order to justify your belief in the existence of God.

It's a silly game, and I'm not playing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evidence I am playing a word game?

The word "machine" is used figuratively / metaphorically, while you pretend that it is being used literally.

Word games.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The burden of evidence is on you to show otherwise.

It is clear that laws in the legal sense need a lawgiver. We have experience with that in human society.

It is only equivocating on this meaning of "law" that scientific laws are seen as needing a "lawgiver" in some straightforward logical or definitional sense. Laws in science are a description of regularities seen in nature, and not "laws" in the legal sense.

So, that is just an equivocation, and a tiresome one.

All laws legal or otherwise are principles and/or forces that bring order and intelligibility to anything such as societies or other entities. Only intelligent minds can create such things.

eud: The demand for examples when you immediately rule out any examples worth giving. It would be like me demanding of you that you provide examples of the existence of other monotheistic Supreme Beings in order to justify your belief in the existence of God.

It's a silly game, and I'm not playing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Any good debater knows that you cant assume what you are trying to prove. This is not some game I made up to frustrate you, it is just a fact of rational argument.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The word "machine" is used figuratively / metaphorically, while you pretend that it is being used literally.

Word games.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. IOW if it has all the characteristics of a machine, then may be it IS a machine.

 

[Eudaimonist]

All laws legal or otherwise are principles and/or forces that bring order and intelligibility to anything such as societies or other entities. Only intelligent minds can create such things.

You are still equivocating. Laws in the legal sense do not bring "intelligibility" to society. They don't even necessarily bring order, but may create chaos instead.

We have experience that "laws require a lawgiver", but there is no such safe conclusion when it comes to natural laws. You may certainly suggest that there is a cosmic cop directing quantum traffic out there and call that influence "laws", but you still have the burden to show that anything like that is happening. You can't conclude this from the use of the word "law" in science, which doesn't refer to cosmic traffic cops, but to regularities in nature.

You are just playing word games, and it is tiresome.

Any good debater knows that you cant assume what you are trying to prove.

I agree, but that has nothing to do with asking people to provide examples, and then telling them that they can't provide the only examples that matter or even exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Right. So when something is called a "machine" in an analogy, that doesn't turn that something into an actual machine.
So stop pretending it does.

IOW if it has all the characteristics of a machine, then may be it IS a machine.

That's the thing of an analogy.... That it doesn't have ALL the characteristics of the subject of the analogy, but only some, insofar as it is analogous.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Right. So when something is called a "machine" in an analogy, that doesn't turn that something into an actual machine.
So stop pretending it does.



That's the thing of an analogy.... That it doesn't have ALL the characteristics of the subject of the analogy, but only some, insofar as it is analogous.

In the analogy you gave, it DOES have all the characteristics of a machine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In the analogy you gave, it DOES have all the characteristics of a machine.

Insofar as the analogy goes, yes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Insofar as the analogy goes, yes.

Then it follows that it requires an intelligent creator and designer like any machine known.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then it follows that it requires an intelligent creator and designer like any machine known.

No, that doesn't follow.

The analogy does not extend far enough to make that a safe conclusion. Even if it did, you'd still end up with an empty tautology -- a "proof" by definition -- and the burden of proof would still remain to show that what we call "machines" (that is, what we include in the set of all "machines") can only be produced by an intelligence of some sort, whatever the definition of "machine".

Analogies and definitions are among the worst ways to demonstrate anything. At best, they only prepare the way for the actual argument.

Consider how fragile the argument is that the "painted desert" must be an actual painting painted by an intelligent painter simply because because we call it "painted".

That all begs the question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, that doesn't follow.

The analogy does not extend far enough to make that a safe conclusion. Even if it did, you'd still end up with an empty tautology -- a "proof" by definition -- and the burden of proof would still remain to show that what we call "machines" (that is, what we include in the set of all "machines") can only be produced by an intelligence of some sort, whatever the definition of "machine".

Analogies and definitions are among the worst ways to demonstrate anything. At best, they only prepare the way for the actual argument.

Consider how fragile the argument is that the "painted desert" must be an actual painting painted by an intelligent painter simply because because we call it "painted".

That all begs the question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The difference is that we can empirically demonstrate what caused the colors in the rock and in many cases they can be duplicated with similar well known processes. But with living things the closest way we can re-create living things is by designing and making a machine. Thereby most likely demonstrating what created them, an intelligent designer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then it follows that it requires an intelligent creator and designer like any machine known.

"insofar as the analogy goes".

What aspect of "analogy" don't you understand?

By analogy, you can compare hands and feets.
But hands are not feet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The difference is that we can empirically demonstrate what caused the colors in the rock

Just like we can empirically demonstrate what caused the apparant design in biological organisms.

But with living things the closest way we can re-create living things is by designing and making a machine.

No.

Thereby most likely demonstrating what created them, an intelligent designer.

No.

 

[Ed1wolf]

"insofar as the analogy goes".

What aspect of "analogy" don't you understand?

By analogy, you can compare hands and feets.
But hands are not feet.

We KNOW hands are not feet, but we DONT know that animals are not designed similar to machines. That is the question we are trying to answer. IOW you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The difference is that we can empirically demonstrate what caused the colors in the rock

dh: Just like we can empirically demonstrate what caused the apparant design in biological organisms.

Ok provide the empirically observed steps of a patch of undifferentiated cells or even an "eye spot" changing into a mammalian eye.

ed: But with living things the closest way we can re-create living things is by designing and making a machine.

dh: No.

Ok, provide the empirically observed steps of non-living matter turning into a single celled organism.

ed: Thereby most likely demonstrating what created them, an intelligent designer.

dh: No.

Ok provide an empirically observed example of one genus turning into anther genus.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We KNOW hands are not feet

We also KNOW that biological organisms aren't machines.

, but we DONT know that animals are not designed similar to machines

Maybe, just maybe, it's just you that doesn't know this yet... Ever considered that?

That is the question we are trying to answer.

This question has been answered a long time ago. It seems you didn't get the memo.

IOW you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

No. You just remain in willfull ignorance on the matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok provide the empirically observed steps of a patch of undifferentiated cells or even an "eye spot" changing into a mammalian eye.

It's funny that you creationists always pick on "the eye", while the eye is probably one of the best documented things in context of its evolutionary history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Ok, provide the empirically observed steps of non-living matter turning into a single celled organism.

That's not what you said.

Ok provide an empirically observed example of one genus turning into anther genus.

The evolution of a genus takes far too long to be observed.
That doesn't mean that we can't know that it happened.

We do know that it happened. It's evident from the hierarchical nature of our collective genomes. Common ancestry is a genetic fact. The only model that explains this fact, is evolution.


When we create machines, we never create them in such hierarchical structures. Because that's an incredibly stupid and costly thing to do.

Not even within a single product brand, is this the case.
Even if you limit the "product line" to just the iPhone 1 to 7, even those 7 phones don't fall into a hierarchical structure like life does.

Because designers don't do that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We KNOW hands are not feet

dh: We also KNOW that biological organisms aren't machines.

How do you know? They both have complex interacting parts that work toward specific goals.

ed: , but we DONT know that animals are not designed similar to machines

dh: Maybe, just maybe, it's just you that doesn't know this yet... Ever considered that?

You have yet to provide any evidence that they are not machines. Go ahead, maybe you can convince me.

ed: That is the question we are trying to answer.

dh: This question has been answered a long time ago. It seems you didn't get the memo.

When, where, and by whom?

ed: IOW you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

dh: No. You just remain in willfull ignorance on the matter..

I am all ears (whose purpose is to hear btw), please explain the difference.

 

[dcalling]

It's funny that you creationists always pick on "the eye", while the eye is probably one of the best documented things in context of its evolutionary history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

It is also funny when evolution is called a theory but in fact it is just a hypothesis. Given how well the eye is documented etc, have we done anything that can make evolution of eye hypothesis testable, verifiable and repeatable? What's the explanation of the era of rapid evolution (while evolution is supposed to be slow)?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then it follows that it requires an intelligent creator and designer like any machine known.

This is ridiculous.

These guys are trying to explain to you how an analogy only goes "so far" and that drawing an analogy between A and B, in no way means that A and B are the same thing.

And in response, you then state "then it follows that A and B are the same thing".

I mean, seriously, how intellectually dishonest can you be??

An obvious difference between life and actual machines, is that machines don't reproduce with variation. That's just 1 difference. A difference that goes beyond the analogy. A difference that shows that living things and machines are not the same thing.

Please learn the concept of what an "analogy" is, before disussing this any further, because honestly, the irrationality of your "argument" is through the roof.