Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?What would be analogous to "Hi Quatona!" in this comparison?
No, I did not say that. I'm asking you what you are comparing "Hi Quatona!" to. Presumably it's an analogy for something.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?
I've been through this with you before. Instead of addressing questions, you deflect.No, I did not say that. I'm asking you what you are comparing "Hi Quatona!" to. Presumably it's an analogy for something.
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
That's ironic, considering that you just deflected my question about evidence for design and my question about your analogy.I've been through this with you before. Instead of addressing questions, you deflect.
No.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?
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:
"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?
You're the one who suggested I was using an analogy. I never said that. To get back on point, Quatona said: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?
No, my response shows that I do not need specific measurement,
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.
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.
Then those that disagree with you are dishonest. Nice.Boy are we getting off-topic.
It isn't different. But if you are honestly and innocently trying to find
In this context, the "truth" is your religious opinion?the truth, you will find Him.
I am not fighting anything. I simply do not believe gods are more than characters in books. I have never believed otherwise.Only those who are actively and stubbornly trying to fight against finding Him by looking for every reason not to believe in Him
I don't know what this means. How do you know what I ultimately want?will end up with the eternal separation from Him that they ultimately want.
For what am I being judged? Belief is not a conscious choice.In all other cases, He will judge fairly.
That's my understanding.
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?
So earlier on this thread, I asked about extremes.Because I'm familiar with writing. I've seen people write messages on the beach using sticks, sea shells, sea weed, etc.
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?Again, what analogy are you trying to make?
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).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.
Earlier in the thread, the source you cited for this also stated: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.
Geoff Brumfiel said: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.”
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)?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.
Appearance of design is the not the same as design, as Crick aptly noted.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
He doesn't believe it because there's evidence that it's the product of evolution, not design....so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.
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.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.
We can also calculate that the odds of the fine-tuning occurring by chance is extremely unlikely.
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.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
As an ignostic, I would ask: define what you mean by "designer" in this context, in some testable, falsifiable manner.and we don't know whether or not a designer exists.
We can? Show your numbers.We can also calculate that the odds of the fine-tuning occurring by chance is extremely unlikely.
Asking someone to prove a negative for you would be intellectually bankrupt.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, opinion. It doesn't look designed to me.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.
Because citing opinion does not make your case.So why do I need to make a case for that which even atheistic scientists already concede to?
It's not like belief is a conscious choice, is it?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.
From that page: "There is no debate among both atheists and theists that the universe, the earth, and life on earth displays design."
Correction - the fact that some perceive 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.
Then you are stuck with the perception of design. The perception of design is evidence that we are pattern-seeking critters.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.
Seriously? Instead of acknowledging to your self that you made a fallacious statement...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.
... and quietly moving on, you're actually going to reply by making a false accusation that I am using circular reasoning?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?