Evidence for design

292 posts / 0 new
Last post
Someone's picture
Evidence for design

The evidence for design is my (and I assume your) experience.

There are 2 arguments based on it.

1) The fine tuning of the experience.

With physicalist theories there is no reason to have favoured the expectation of any particular physical activity to have correlated with experience over any other physical activity, or to have favoured what the experience that correlated with physical activity would be like.

Whereas theist theorists can explain why the experience that correlates to certain physical activity is like it is rather than being a flash of light every time a neuron fires for example. The latter wouldn't have been fit for purpose (making moral judgements based on it).

So it is a fine tuning argument, but the fine tuning of the experience, rather than the fine tuning of the physics constants, or the fine tuning of the planet's proximity to the sun, which could be explained by a multiverse, or the number of planets respectively. The fine tuning of the experience seems to me to be taken for granted and thus ignored, yet it part of the most telling arguments for design.

2) Our ability to respond to the experience.

A theist can explain it without it being explicitly observed (quantum randomness, and fluctuations of kinetic energy, and a being (God for example) which knows the fine adjustments that can be made (explainable by chaos theory) and the means to make them). Whereas with a reality without deities there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured). The theist can therefore explain how it is that my form can express that the person experiencing having it is infallible when it comes to the statement that "reality is not one in which none experience", for example. ]

Irony:

Those that believe reality is one without deities asking where is the evidence for design? Because the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence.

Debate restriction:

Some may go to the lengths of denying that they understand what is meant by experience, but I will not be drawn into that debate. If that is the way one of you wants to go, then I will just leave you to perhaps one day realise that you are being like one of those in the Emperor's New Clothes story that denied what they experienced in order (they thought) to appear intelligent.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Qu@si's picture
"The fine tuning"

"The fine tuning"

here goes the fine tuning again....*nom..nom..nom.*
popcorn? anyone?...*passing popcorn bowl

first "nobody"...now can "somebody" please tell me? "someone"?

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Someone's picture
Ok, so first atheist up.....

Ok, so first atheist up..... hmmm, on the debate forum but avoided the debate.

NewSkeptic's picture
Do you know Nobody?

Do you know Nobody?

Why did your designer design with all the imperfections we see?

Why did your designer design in such a way that the scientific method can explain much of it? Since your designer is omnipotent, he did not need to design using quantum mechanics. You designer could have just made an apple an apple and it would be nothing but an apple no matter how small a section was drilled into.

Why did your designer use dna. Your designer could have made it clear that humans were special by giving them a completely different design than anything else.

Why did your designer bother to create trillions of galaxies with up to trillions of stars in each of them if his sole focus was on one small planet?

Someone's picture
Ok, second atheist up... hmm.

Ok, second atheist up... hmm... on the debate forum, but did not debate the arguments I presented instead just switched topic away from the 2 arguments.

arakish's picture
Oh gosh. Is this a sock

Oh gosh. Is this a sock puppet. First there is Nobody, now there is Someone. When will Everybody and Anybody get here?

Here is an Intelligent Design statement I made against WLC's teleological (is this the right one?) argument.

If the Intelligent Design hypothesis were real, then explain this one example and two statements.

Example = Humans.

Statements:
1) If intelligence were used, then why is the same orifice used for breathing and to ingest food? Insuring at least 8% will die from choking. Did you know that 95% of all choking deaths occur in the home environment? Did you know choking is the fifth most common cause of accidental death in the United States?
2) If intelligence were used to design us humans, simply look between our legs. What is up with that? An entertainment console and a sewage system?

My response to: “The complexity and diversity of life had to have had a Creator.”:
I can easily see where by natural selection you can have infinite complexity from infinite diversity through infinite combinations. NOT Intelligent Design (synthesized from the Vulcan IDIC).

However, I am going into a little further detail. And only a little is needed to utterly disprove your Intelligent Design ideology. If the universe, and the Earth, were intelligently designed, then why is so much of it inhospitable to us? If those fundamental constants were so finely tuned for life to exist, then why is there so little of the universe where we can live? All I can see is a universe, and an Earth, that wants to do nothing but kill us. A universe, and an Earth, that wants nothing more than to exterminate us from all existence. What is up with that? Maybe your God is not so intelligent? Or, more feasible, he does not exist.

If everything was intelligently designed, then answer this statement made by Stephen Fry when he was asked what he would say to God if he existed: “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you! How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our [human’s] fault? It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”

To be wholly honest, Stephen Fry has the perfect proof with that statement that your God does not exist. Just go visit any Children’s Hospital and you shall see proof that your God does not exist. Children, young and innocent children, are suffering in the most awful pain. Their parents are praying to your God for protection of their children, for healing of their children. Some children will get better. Most, however, will succumb and die. And your only response to those that die would be, “God is mysterious.” God is mysterious? What kind of bullshit is that? No mystery at all, since he does not exist.

Why would a God who has ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, and ultimate goodness (again I still differ on the goodness) allow there to be “bone cancer” in innocent children? I have personally seen a seven-year old child in the hospital with advanced leukemia. (Why I was at the hospital is whole other story.) Sad to say, even after my wife and I anonymously donated a sum of money to her family, that child died about nine months later, just three days before her eighth birthday. Cancers to kill children? This makes your God nothing more than a filicidal maniac. A very sick, sadistic psychopath. And where did you say from whence evil comes? The answer is simple: If he does exist, your sky-faerie is the ultimate source of all evil.

Thus, your God's Intelligent Design is not so intelligent, nor a designer.

rmfr

Someone's picture
Ok, third atheist up... hmm..

Ok, third atheist up... hmm... on the debate forum, but did not debate the arguments I presented instead just switched topic away from the 2 arguments. Seems to be a trend here. The atheists avoiding debating the arguments.

arakish's picture
I did debate on your idea of

I did debate on your idea of Intelligent Design.

There is no experience in it, thus no argument.

What you are arguing is "Evidence for Design" and offer none. Thus, I offered my counter argument that there is no evidence for design, especially not intelligent.

Got something that came up. I may come back and finish.

rmfr

LostLocke's picture
A few more new people and

A few more new people and this will turn into a 'Who's on first' sketch.

Someone's picture
Ok, fourth atheist up... hmm.

Ok, fourth atheist up... hmm... on the debate forum, but did not even bother with a topic switch, just didn't debate the arguments. So responses, but so far all the atheists (or perhaps agnostics) just avoided debating the arguments presented.

Someone's picture
Ok, fourth atheist up... hmm.

Ok, fourth atheist up... hmm... on the debate forum, but did not even bother with a topic switch, just didn't debate the arguments. So responses, but so far all the atheists (or perhaps agnostics) just avoided debating the arguments presented.

Qu@si's picture
this one is feisty bruh...

this one is feisty bruh....hahaha...this is going to be so fun..he's so damn serious about this...hahahah...

i wanna see how this goes...and how will he handle...will he be more slippery than john "the god like" breezy...?

we'll never know....maybe someone can tell somenone...hahahah....*scratches head* *reaches on the popcorn*
*nom..nom..nom.* ..hey t-man we have someone here...come on..give him a big welcome..come on..ask him if he knows "anyone"

Tin-Man's picture
Hey, will Somebody please

Hey, will Somebody please tell Someone that he is making it difficult for Anybody to understand who he is addressing? I mean, on here Everybody simply states the name of Somebody when replying to a particular post, that way Everybody knows who Somebody is addressing. But when Someone uses the "first, second, third person above" method, then it makes it difficult for Anybody to follow the conversation, and then Nobody benefits from the resulting confusion. Let's face it, Anybody and Everybody knows Nobody loves confusion, except for Someone (obviously), who seems to want to keep Everybody confused. Somebody, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Someone's picture
Fifth atheist up, still no

Fifth atheist up, still no debate, instead opts for comedy.

Is it that no atheist on the forum can imagine a counter for either argument, but none of them have the courage to admit it? That would explain why all the responses avoid addressing either argument. If you think you have a counter for one but not the other, then just state that and go with the one you think you have a counter for.

Tin-Man... did you have a counter argument to either of the arguments that were put forward in the original post? (I do hope I don't end up with a "yes, but I'm not telling you what they are" type of response).

David Killens's picture
Our experiences are personal

Our experiences are personal and unique. What I see and experience can differ from someone standing right beside me. As human beings, we are selfish and have egos. Thus, for many, their personal experiences are self-centered. That was displayed with such popular concepts as the earth being the center of everything.

And I know of too many people who believe the earth rotates around them and that their shit doesn't stink.

Additionally, if a puddle of water was capable of self realization, would it assume that the ground was designed for them, or did the water just take the shape of the hole?

For these reasons personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything. To reach a true understanding, the scientific method of multiple examinations and even the adversarial approach is required. When an academic publishes a paper, no one accepts it if they are pleading "based on my personal experiences".

Part two:

This planet was not designed for humanity. A great percentage of this planet is lethal for humans. If I am suddenly relocated in any direction, the odds are over 99% that I will perish. Only within a narrow range of environments can I survive.

If one examines the history of the planet, it constantly experiences events that cause mass extinctions. When the first plants appeared during the Ordovician period, they converted so much oxygen from carbon dioxide that this planet was plunged into a deep freeze. Ice covered the entire planet at a depth over one kilometer. The temperature dropped below 40. It was amazing that anything survived.

Part three:

The recent discoveries from the Mars Curiosity Rover has identified complex molecules and other environmental factors (such as a lot of water) that indicate that "life' may be possible. If a supreme agent (call it god, call it the flying spaghetti monster) did design this planet for life, then why a second try on Mars? If Mars was intended to be a dead planet, then it should not display any indications that life was possible on Mars.

The truth of the matter is that life may exist, but it has to find conditions favorable for it to come into existence and survive. For this planet Earth, the only reason life and mankind is here is because conditions were favorable. We lucked in.

Someone's picture
Sixth atheist up, and guess

Sixth atheist up, and guess what.... it didn't enter the debate and address the arguments.

By the way, if any atheist on here thinks they have an argument which shows that we are not experiencing the universe by design, then maybe start up a new thread, and as long as there aren't too many I will be happy to address them (I could maybe respond to the first 10). I would rather keep them out of this thread though, so it is obvious to any reader the inability of the atheists on this forum to offer a counter to the arguments presented.,

Only have a short time before I won't be responding again until Sunday.

NewSkeptic's picture
@Someone

@Someone

You have to understand how this forum works.

We always start with pointing out the absurdity of the creationist/ID poster. We then delve into some back and forth comedy and ridicule between the regular forum users. We then go off on a myriad of tangents.

Then, and here's the part you're waiting for, we bring out the heavy-hitters who logically refute the bullshit presented (Sheldon, Cog, etc.). Then the OP will make a fool of him/her self by losing the arguments over and over again. Then the OP will take a permanent leave of absence. This will then be followed by more comedic ridicule.

Wash, rinse, repeat,

Someone's picture
Ok, thanks for the info. So

Ok, thanks for the info. So do you think those "heavy-hitters" will have been on by Sunday, presumably they don't follow any kind of Sabbath thing? Or how long do you think I should wait before checking back in?

NewSkeptic's picture
I don't think they are

I don't think they are morning people. Most of them like to have a few afternoon drinks, maybe even a siesta, then come to the forum. After some stretching and a few Gregorian chants, they should be ready to impart their wisdom.

I do have to point out that you a missing one aspect of the experience that most OPs really enjoyed. One of our former regulars was our "insult master" who was quick and on point with four letter bombs and really brought a sense of urgency. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us (don't worry, just banned, not with his designer) . We are taking applications, so if you know anyone........

Someone's picture
Oh so while the guidelines

Oh so while the guidelines involve the idea of no bullying, the atheists on the forum often attempt that to keep those pesky theists from bothering to debate them. They do sound naughty.

NewSkeptic's picture
Not at all. Bullying is not

Not at all. Bullying is not allowed, might be why the former member is banned. I just miss him and am sad for you that you can't get the complete experience, the missing one that might even prove your designer if I at all understand your gibberish in the first post (don't worry, I've read it several times and it makes less and less sense each time).

As an aside, have you been to Ken Hamm's ark EXPERIENCE? That ark was also designed and that's been the experience of everyone who's visited. No debate there.

Oh, and also, David K did address your homily, you just chose to say he didn't.

Someone's picture
What part of the first post

What part of the first post were you unable to comprehend?

Where did you think David K addressed the post, and what did you think of his answer?

Someone's picture
Apparently at least one on

Apparently at least one on the forum thought you did address the arguments in the post. I have looked at your post again since first posting my response and I suppose I could consider your statement: "For these reasons personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything" a response as my arguments were based upon personal experience.

So I will look at what your reasons were, and can put them in a form of a logical argument using each as a premise if suitable:

1) Our experiences are personal and unique. What I see and experience can differ from someone standing right beside me. As human beings, we are selfish and have egos. Thus, for many, their personal experiences are self-centered. That was displayed with such popular concepts as the earth being the centre of everything.

2) And I know of too many people who believe the earth rotates around them and that their shit doesn't stink.

Therefore

3) For these reasons personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything

But (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). The argument if it was indeed intended as one would be an example of a person making a non-sequitur inference. (1) and (2) could be true, and the person could still know they are infallible regarding the statement I mentioned in argument (2): "reality is not one in which none experience". So the personal experience is a proof.

As an aside, the question "Additionally, if a puddle of water was capable of self realization, would it assume that the ground was designed for them, or did the water just take the shape of the hole?" cannot be used as a premise, as it is a question.

If you were making a serious attempt at addressing the arguments there, then I apologise for not recognising it as such. Regardless though it doesn't work, hopefully you can see why. Perhaps I should wait for the "heavy hitters" to turn up.

David Killens's picture
@Someone

@Someone

IMO they don't need to hurry because you aren't worth it. My post was intended more to gauge you and discern your tactics. I categorize it as discovering what wall you are hiding behind.

It is not difficult to realize you never intend this to be a logical exchange of opinions or a debate. You have attempted to narrow the scope of the discussion to such an incredibly narrow window, that nothing valid will come of it.

I do not debate dishonest people, which you are. You aren't worth the time.

Qu@si's picture
"I do not debate dishonest

"I do not debate dishonest people, which you are."

@dave
i think most of them are dave...they are well "taught" about this slippery things..

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sheldon's picture
Are you trying to break some

Are you trying to break some sort of record for the most tautologies in a single thread? You can rattle the word evidence off incessantly 2 or 3 times in every sentence, this does't mean you are actually demonstrating any objective evidence.
---------------------------------------------------
"2) And I know of too many people who believe the earth rotates around them and that their shit doesn't stink.

Therefore

3) For these reasons personal experiences carry zero weight in proving anything

But (3) does not follow from (1) and (2)."

*Actually it does follow, since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs. Mental institutions the world over are filled with people who believe absolutely their personal experience of the world accurately reflects reality, and they're wrong, that's why they are detained in such institutions. The real mystery is why we give religious delusions a free pass.

Someone's picture
Sheldon, aren't you supposed

Sheldon, aren't you supposed to be one of the forum's atheist "heavy hitters"?

It does not matter whether some personal experience can be demonstrated to be objectively false. For the conclusion to follow from premises ALL personal experience must carry zero weight in proving anything. And not only is, as I already spoon fed those atheists in the forum in the first post, personal experience the ONLY evidence each of us ever has, I also provided an example of a truth that it is evidence for. The truth being that "reality is not one in which no one experiences".

Amazing that one that doesn't even seem to comprehend basic logic, or comprehend simple truths when spoon fed them can be considered one of the forum's "heavy hitters". What does that say about the rest of the atheists of the forum?

David Killens's picture
@ Someone

@ Someone

"It does not matter whether some personal experience can be demonstrated to be objectively false. For the conclusion to follow from premises ALL personal experience must carry zero weight in proving anything. And not only is, as I already spoon fed those atheists in the forum in the first post, personal experience the ONLY evidence each of us ever has, I also provided an example of a truth that it is evidence for. The truth being that "reality is not one in which no one experiences"."

Personal experience cannot prove anything to others.

But just because personal experience carries little weight, there are other methods that can be used to provide proof. The scientific method is observation, testing, repeatability, and the ability to be proven wrong. If a concept can be tested by many and all yield the same results, then we are closer to the truth.

sub·stan·ti·ate

provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

Someone's picture
For scientific evidence to be

For scientific evidence to be evidence to anyone that experiences, either the evidence would have to be experienced, or the report of it being experienced report would have to be experienced. I had already explained that experience is the only evidence that we have (my intended audience being those that experience), you only have to supply one counter example to falsify what I was saying. But instead of realising that, you instead seem to be restating the same kind of stuff that you were stating and simply indicating that you failed to comprehend what I wrote.

David Killens's picture
Not at all. There are

Not at all. There are countless personal experiences each moment. But when one tells others, they test it, then and only then can it be accepted as more than just a fairy tale.

Personal experience is not evidence. Only by testing a personal experience by many others can that experience become evidence.

I understand what you are stating Someone. But it is not incumbent on me to offer a counter. You are the one offering a claim, it is on you to prove it.

I know you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Someone's picture
Ok, we I guess we need to

Ok, we I guess we need to distinguish between what we mean by subjective and objective evidence. They aren't great terms, but roughly what I mean by them is:

Subjective evidence is the evidence that is only accessible to you.

Objective evidence is evidence is evidence that is accessible to everyone that has access to that type of evidence.

So for example, consider colour inversion, what I experience as red you might experience as I experience blue. But we would nevertheless describe the experiences in the same language. So imagine what I experience as red, and you experience as I experience blue is called "blue", and what I experience as blue and you experience as I experience as red is called "red". How we each experience them could be thought of as subjective experience.

But that we might both describe our experience of scientific experiments the same is what I would call objective experience, as the experience is of the experiment result is not restricted to one person. Sure a blind person might not experience some visual experience that others do, but there is more than one that do experience it in a way that they can agree upon.

The evidence I gave in argument (2) only relies on us experiencing (variations of what that experience is like do not matter), and for argument (1) that we experience having a form, experiencing objects, etc. rather than a flash of light or some sense of touch every time a neuron fires.

Experience is evidence, and the only evidence we have that reality is one in which at least some are involved in experiencing. You can deny knowing what is meant by experience, but if you do not, how do you know?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.