The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Joshua260]

What would be analogous to "Hi Quatona!" in this comparison?

Do you actually mean to suggest that you agree that the odds are even that "Hi Quatona!" could have been spelled out on accident or on purpose? Are you actually going to support that ludicrous idea?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you actually mean to suggest that you agree that the odds are even that "Hi Quatona!" could have been spelled out on accident or on purpose? Are you actually going to support that ludicrous idea?

No, I did not say that. I'm asking you what you are comparing "Hi Quatona!" to. Presumably it's an analogy for something.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I explained that already.

Where?

 

[Joshua260]

No, I did not say that. I'm asking you what you are comparing "Hi Quatona!" to. Presumably it's an analogy for something.

I've been through this with you before. Instead of addressing questions, you deflect.

The current question at hand in my "Hi Quatona!" exchange (and in my argument btw) is not how one detects something that looks designed, but rather that when one does, what are the odds that the appearance of design was on accident or on purpose.

So back to the question at hand:
If you walked down the beach and found the words "Hi Archaeopteryx!" spelled out in seashells, do you believe the odds are even that the message could have occurred on accident or on purpose?

 

[bhsmte]

Here is a common one. There may be better articles on the same topic than this one, but it is a typical starting point, I suppose.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1412

Weak.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've been through this with you before. Instead of addressing questions, you deflect.

That's ironic, considering that you just deflected my question about evidence for design and my question about your analogy.

The current question at hand in my "Hi Quatona!" exchange (and in my argument btw) is not how one detects something that looks designed, but rather that when one does, what are the odds that the appearance of design was on accident or on purpose.

So back to the question at hand:
If you walked down the beach and found the words "Hi Archaeopteryx!" spelled out in seashells, do you believe the odds are even that the message could have occurred on accident or on purpose?

No.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260:
"If you walked down the beach and found the words "Hi Archaeopteryx!" spelled out in seashells, do you believe the odds are even that the message could have occurred on accident or on purpose?"

No.

Ok. So then why don't you believe the odds are even between "on accident" and "on purpose" as reasons that the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" was spelled out in seashells on the beach? Are you using an analogy to influence your belief about the odds?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Joshua260:
"If you walked down the beach and found the words "Hi Archaeopteryx!" spelled out in seashells, do you believe the odds are even that the message could have occurred on accident or on purpose?"


Ok. So then why don't you believe the odds are even between "on accident" and "on purpose" as reasons that the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" was spelled out in seashells on the beach? Are you using an analogy to influence your belief about the odds?

Because I'm familiar with writing. I've seen people write messages on the beach using sticks, sea shells, sea weed, etc. Again, what analogy are you trying to make?

 

[Joshua260]

Because I'm familiar with writing. I've seen people write messages on the beach using sticks, sea shells, sea weed, etc. Again, what analogy are you trying to make?

You're the one who suggested I was using an analogy. I never said that. To get back on point, Quatona said:

"If the odds for something to be the way it is [on accident] are extremely low, the odds for it to be designed [on purpose] that way are equally extremely low."

And you and I have agreed that's not a true statement. Thanks for your concurrence. Got to go...I might check back on later.

 

[Belk]

No, my response shows that I do not need specific measurement,

In what way does stating a system must be as complex as something it contains show that we have no examples of things creating more complex systems?

but yes, I am putting forth my opinion as any other claim. If you can prove that my basis is actually wrong or that it cannot be applied then do it.

It is not up to me to disprove your claims. It is up to you to support them and I fail to see how you can do so without being able to measure complexity.

 

[bhsmte]

In what way does stating a system must be as complex as something it contains show that we have no examples of things creating more complex systems?



It is not up to me to disprove your claims. It is up to you to support them and I fail to see how you can do so without being able to measure complexity.

I see a distinct pattern on this board. Virtually every person that is a supporter of design and or ID, asks the other person to prove them wrong, vs actually providing evidence for their own claim.

If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what does.

 

[Belk]

I see a distinct pattern on this board. Virtually every person that is a supporter of design and or ID, asks the other person to prove them wrong, vs actually providing evidence for their own claim.

If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what does.

Funny thing is the first forum I ever chatted on was an ID board because I wanted to see if there was anything behind it. The behavior you describe is not limited to this board.

 

[Davian]

Boy are we getting off-topic.

It isn't different. But if you are honestly and innocently trying to find

Then those that disagree with you are dishonest. Nice.

the truth, you will find Him.

In this context, the "truth" is your religious opinion?

Only those who are actively and stubbornly trying to fight against finding Him by looking for every reason not to believe in Him

I am not fighting anything. I simply do not believe gods are more than characters in books. I have never believed otherwise.

will end up with the eternal separation from Him that they ultimately want.

I don't know what this means. How do you know what I ultimately want?

In all other cases, He will judge fairly.

For what am I being judged? Belief is not a conscious choice.

That's my understanding.

 

[Davian]

There is some real presumption to that. If God says He will judge fairly, why suppose He won't? If you think Jesus was a liar, point out where and why. Otherwise, what did He say but believe in me and you will be saved?

Knock Knock

• Davian
• Jan 1, 2015

 

[Joshua260]

So I'm back...

Because I'm familiar with writing. I've seen people write messages on the beach using sticks, sea shells, sea weed, etc.

So earlier on this thread, I asked about extremes.

I took one extreme:
What should you think if you saw the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" on the beach and knew that no intelligent being ever existed other than yourself? Since it doesn't seem necessary that every beach have that message, and we know no intelligent being exists, I think that would make the chance option more likely.

Other extreme:
What should you think if you saw the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" on the beach and knew that intelligent beings existed nearby? You already told me that you would believe that design was more likely.

So let's look at the current situation:
Scientists agree that the universe looks designed and we don't know whether or not a designer exists. We can also calculate that the odds of the fine-tuning occurring by chance is extremely unlikely. So why should we rule out design like Hawking or other committed atheists do? I don't see how they could have proved that a designer does not exist.

Again, what analogy are you trying to make?

Ok, so like I said, I didn't make any analogies. But let's not one of the main points of the argument in the OP get lost in the discussion. Even though you may not, scientists (even atheistic scientists) already agree that the universe looks designed. So why do I need to make a case for that which even atheistic scientists already concede to?

Richard Dawkins: "Living objects . . . look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they're designed. Biology is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose."

Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
...so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.

Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/teleological-argument-existence-God.html#ixzz3fSC3cPs4

Plus I've already shown that Hawking accepts the chance option for fine-tuning and also that others have postulated a mutli-verse...all in response to the fact that the universe looks designed.

I'll just make my answer easy by saying that whatever analogy they used to determine that the universe looks designed is good enough for me.

 

[quatona]

So if you walked down the beach and found the words "Hi Quatona!" spelled out in seashells, you think that the odds are equal that it could have come about by chance or design? Surely, you jest.

Well, I know that´s what humans do all the time: Use human language to communicate human messages. So I would conclude human design - based on my knowledge that, why and how humans design things. (You know, it´s not like I am trying to prove that humans exist and design stuff, or something - we already know this).
Completely different situation. What you are doing here is more like: Seeing "Hi Joshua" spelled out in seashells and concluding that you, the universe and everything are designed by the entity who wrote this.
That´s why I keep pointing out the circularity in your line of reasoning: Without assuming intent, in the first place, there is no significance in the fact that the universe is the way it is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So I'm back...


So earlier on this thread, I asked about extremes.

I took one extreme:
What should you think if you saw the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" on the beach and knew that no intelligent being ever existed other than yourself? Since it doesn't seem necessary that every beach have that message, and we know no intelligent being exists, I think that would make the chance option more likely.

Other extreme:
What should you think if you saw the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" on the beach and knew that intelligent beings existed nearby? You already told me that you would believe that design was more likely.

So let's look at the current situation:
Scientists agree that the universe looks designed and we don't know whether or not a designer exists. We can also calculate that the odds of the fine-tuning occurring by chance is extremely unlikely.

Earlier in the thread, the source you cited for this also stated:

But things have changed in the past few years, says astronomer Bernard Carr of Queen Mary, University of London, UK. String theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation. If their ideas stand up, it would mean the constants of nature are meaningless. “In the past, many people were almost violently opposed to that idea because it wasn’t seen as proper science,” Carr says. “But there’s been a change of attitude.”

So why should we rule out design like Hawking or other committed atheists do? I don't see how they could have proved that a designer does not exist.

Perhaps you should go ask Hawking. This is not a position I'm committed to defend. I already noted that design is a possibility, but that we have no reason to think that the universe was actually designed. I can only speculate as to why Hawking rules it out altogether: perhaps it's because a designer (or designers) would only push the question back a step further: who designed the designer(s)?

Ok, so like I said, I didn't make any analogies. But let's not one of the main points of the argument in the OP get lost in the discussion. Even though you may not, scientists (even atheistic scientists) already agree that the universe looks designed. So why do I need to make a case for that which even atheistic scientists already concede to?

Richard Dawkins: "Living objects . . . look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they're designed. Biology is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose."

Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
...so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.

Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/teleological-argument-existence-God.html#ixzz3fSC3cPs4

Appearance of design is the not the same as design, as Crick aptly noted.

...so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.

He doesn't believe it because there's evidence that it's the product of evolution, not design.

Plus I've already shown that Hawking accepts the chance option for fine-tuning and also that others have postulated a mutli-verse...all in response to the fact that the universe looks designed.

I'll just make my answer easy by saying that whatever analogy they used to determine that the universe looks designed is good enough for me.

Huh? Your reasoning seems to have ground to a halt here. Evolution runs counter to your point because it is an example of how the appearance of design can be misleading: what appeared to have been designed turned out to have evolved.

 

[KCfromNC]

We can also calculate that the odds of the fine-tuning occurring by chance is extremely unlikely.

Not without a workable model of the origin of the values of whatever it is that is supposed to be tuned. Without knowing what the range and probability distribution of the various potential outcomes there's no reason to assume any particular odds for a poorly-defined subset of those results.

So by "we can also calculate" do you mean you've done this work, or are you just saying that at some point in the future someone might put together a working model which may or may not correspond to your particular guesses?

 

[Davian]

So I'm back...


So earlier on this thread, I asked about extremes.

I took one extreme:
What should you think if you saw the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" on the beach and knew that no intelligent being ever existed other than yourself? Since it doesn't seem necessary that every beach have that message, and we know no intelligent being exists, I think that would make the chance option more likely.

Other extreme:
What should you think if you saw the message "Hi Archaeopteryx!" on the beach and knew that intelligent beings existed nearby? You already told me that you would believe that design was more likely.

So let's look at the current situation:
Scientists agree that the universe looks designed

Some, as individuals, may be of this opinion, but not as scientists. There are atheists that like chocolate ice cream, but that does not make atheism a position on ice cream flavours.

and we don't know whether or not a designer exists.

As an ignostic, I would ask: define what you mean by "designer" in this context, in some testable, falsifiable manner.

We can also calculate that the odds of the fine-tuning occurring by chance is extremely unlikely.

We can? Show your numbers.

So why should we rule out design like Hawking or other committed atheists do? I don't see how they could have proved that a designer does not exist.

Asking someone to prove a negative for you would be intellectually bankrupt.

Ok, so like I said, I didn't make any analogies. But let's not one of the main points of the argument in the OP get lost in the discussion. Even though you may not, scientists (even atheistic scientists) already agree that the universe looks designed.

Again, opinion. It doesn't look designed to me.

So why do I need to make a case for that which even atheistic scientists already concede to?

Because citing opinion does not make your case.

Richard Dawkins: "Living objects . . . look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they're designed. Biology is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose."

Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
...so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.

It's not like belief is a conscious choice, is it?

Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/teleological-argument-existence-God.html#ixzz3fSC3cPs4

From that page: "There is no debate among both atheists and theists that the universe, the earth, and life on earth displays design."

Obviously wrong, as not everyone sees this alleged "design". And, if we are pretending that we are in a philosophy forum, I will take issue with the phrase "displays design".

To be clear, the appearance of design only happens in one's head.

Curved lines

• Davian
• Jul 10, 2015

That these lines appear curved or straight is a function of how the image is processed in our brains; you may perceive these lines as curved, and you and millions of others may submit that as evidence for them being curved, but it would still be terrible evidence (opinion).

Like the colour green, it is not so much displayed by the object - but that green is the label we apply to to our perception of the observed phenomenon.

Plus I've already shown that Hawking accepts the chance option for fine-tuning and also that others have postulated a mutli-verse...all in response to the fact that the universe looks designed.

Correction - the fact that some perceive design.

I'll just make my answer easy by saying that whatever analogy they used to determine that the universe looks designed is good enough for me.

Then you are stuck with the perception of design. The perception of design is evidence that we are pattern-seeking critters.

"Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Why?

The answer has two parts, starting with the concept of “patternicity,” which I defined in my December 2008 column as the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Consider the face on Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, satanic messages in rock music. Of course, some patterns are real. Finding predictive patterns in changing weather, fruiting trees, migrating prey animals and hungry predators was central to the survival of Paleolithic hominids."

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World

 

[Joshua260]

Well, I know that´s what humans do all the time: Use human language to communicate human messages. So I would conclude human design - based on my knowledge that, why and how humans design things. (You know, it´s not like I am trying to prove that humans exist and design stuff, or something - we already know this).
Completely different situation. What you are doing here is more like: Seeing "Hi Joshua" spelled out in seashells and concluding that you, the universe and everything are designed by the entity who wrote this.
That´s why I keep pointing out the circularity in your line of reasoning: Without assuming intent, in the first place, there is no significance in the fact that the universe is the way it is.

Seriously? Instead of acknowledging to your self that you made a fallacious statement...

If the odds for something to be the way it is are extremely low, the odds for it to be designed that way are equally extremely low.

... and quietly moving on, you're actually going to reply by making a false accusation that I am using circular reasoning?

Ok then. Please point out exactly where in my OP (copied below) did I use circular reasoning?

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
3. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.