The assumption of design from complexity.

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
@Leper

@Leper

we're you one those who openly admit that I might be right?

Give me solid testable repeatable evidence of a claim of yours, and I will be happy to admit you are right if the evidence holds up and is true. I also say this to any theist: if you can prove to me with large amounts of real evidence that your particular god idea is real, not only would i HAPPILY say you were right all along, but I would kiss your feet for enlightening me and happily give you all my worldly possessions if you desired it. I would very likely still think whatever god that was is evil/horrible, but I would be eternally very thankful for the very important information that a particular god was actually real.

You're one of those doubtful atheists?

Definitely not. I put the likelihood of any of the major religion/god concepts I have ever heard of actually being real at about the same likelihood that the sun will rise from the west tomorrow instead of the east.

Or is it that the moral standards you want to apply to me are different from those you follow yourself?

I would be thrilled if you and others followed my personal moral code instead of that of a pedophile supposed divine prophet person that died over 1000 years ago. But I do not expect that, I do encourage all people to drop all these unevidenced bronze age superstitions as I feel the whole of humanity would benefit rather enormously. For one we would not likely have to argue over if marrying a 6 year old and getting her pregnant before 10 is actually "okay."

Not at all, the Qur'an is right with this, if you've read it.

I fully admit I have not read the Qur'an, only small quotes/snippets here and there. I have no interest in reading it beyond pointing out where it badly contradicts it self or is openly false and/or vague. I have read enough of it and heard enough about it to know exactly what it is, a highly edited, translated work written over 1000 years ago by people that most certainly had an agenda.

however the actual word in the original version doesn't have to be translated as "a day".

This further highlights the problem of highly edited translated works written over 1000 years ago. The whole day thing in genesis is rather comical. How did they mistranslate a DAY? A simple concept that every single human well understands? Did the translators (done in house by the religion!) just decide to deceive people for a while with ridiculous notion of 6 days of creation, of which several was before the sun was even created?

Well in Islam Muhammad was the last prophet.

Glad we agree.

Here, its funny, atheists often like to point out that theists put human characteristics on God, but that's exactly what you do and that's partly why - or at least how - you reject God. You think it absurd God would wait because...... You think that if you had magical powers you wouldn't have patience.

You forget, I do not believe in any god of anytype, at all. I assign no human characteristics to a god, because I very confidently believe there is no such thing. You are however correct on one of the reasons why I reject any and all god ideas, because just about all of the major god ideas, you responded to my thread about why all gods are illogical, you already know I think this. I actually was not talking about god's patience, I was talking about the ineptitude of god and how fleeting its supposed interaction with humans are. It is religion that assigns ALL KINDS OF human like behavior to god, most religions even point out something like: "god made man in his image" they openly admit to this! Religions anthropomorphizing god IS a major reason why I reject the god ideas. It is utterly illogical. And religion ideas are forced to anthropomorphize god, or it would not be a successful lasting religion. If 2000+ years ago when the religion was not yet popular they went around telling people: God is some entity that lives outside space and time and we cannot possibly understand it, but it created the universe, but has nothing like human or animal empathy (because it most certainly is not like any animal or human) because we don't even know what it is, and it does not interact with us humans in any meaningful way (like handing down a supposed guide/list to morals and rules) do you think anyone would follow that religion? Listen to the leaders of it? Donate power and money to it?

2 Peter 3:3.... etc

Why would I care about some quote from some book that is completely unevidenced and obviously is not based in anyway in reality? Sounds like a waste of time to me.

Time was created by God. He isn't bound by it which is again something you assume He is because you assume He is something like you when He is nothing like anyone or anything else.

This shows the very common, (even among atheist) misunderstanding what time actually is. But anyways despite that, we humans are certainly bound by time, even if this supposed god idea is not. Why would an entity outside of space time care one whit about humans? If this god concept is not human like and cannot be understood, how can we possibly have any sort of meaningful conversation about this god and how it could possibly relate to you and me? What /any action by this creator entity outside of space time have anything to do with you and me now? Essentially you are running to god of the gaps god concept, (a concept that is completely out of reach of anysort of rational discourse like being falsifiable,) then make an invisible zero connection leap from that god to your current god concept that is MUCH MUCH more than simply god of the gaps entity.

God didn't talk to them? The Qur'an says All people have been sent the message. Therefore, all people have been sent the message. How, by whom, when, what message, that no one knows.

I certainly did not receive that message. Most people I ever talked to have never received such a message. Either your god concept is utterly inept at communication (for being supposedly all powerful and knowing,) or only talks to a select few people, (what an asshole if that god also rewards/punish based on complicity to his message.) OR ya know the far and away most reasonable simple and likely scenario: your god concept is just that, a concept, completly unmoored by any sort of corroabtory actual evidence.

In Islam there is speculation - according a hadith - that there have been an approximate of 124,000 prophets and messengers.

124,000 prophets to 110+ billion people. Lets round down a bit to make the math easier. 110k prophets for 110 billion people. Thats 1 prophet per roughly 1 million people. And despite all these prophets adoption rate of islam as a whole is still below 10%. Another sign of how inept a god supposedly interested in communicating to people through prophets (why such a horribly inefficient way?? remember we are talking about a god that created everything including us humans!) Again we are left with eithir a highly inept god or one that at least is very duplicitous and selective (evil.)

Again you are assuming God should think like you.

I dont assume that at all, out of all the various god ideas out there, the one I think most likely is some sort of entity that is currently greater than humans that may have some sort of hand in the creation of life on earth, maybe the earth, maybe the universe. I think even this god is highly unlikely as evolution, chemistry, etc explains such things with far greater detail and actually has observable testable data to back it up. But gun to my head if I had to pick a god idea, that is the one I would pick as most likely. These assumptions about god of the major religions like christianity and islam comes from the books, the talk etc of the people that believe in that.

Same as before. Why should we live forever? That is your human greed speaking.

Same as before... what? I missed that memo. I never said we should live forever. I was talking about things like cancer. Is it greed to want humans to have been smartly enough "designed" by a supposed god entity that can design sharks to not have cancer? Is it really? What about little kids that die of horrible cancers before they even hit 5 years old? Going to leave that oversight of your god concepts all mighty powers to: "god works in mysterious ways?"

Do you mean the flood? In the Qur'an it is not a global flood.

This is why I did not say the words "flood" I have heard the Qur'an has its own versions of global catastrophe created by an (angry?) god.

LogicFTW: "Why is evolution not even vaguely mentioned in all the ancient text that supposedly came from god?"
Leper: It is in the Qur'an.

I know I can go look up the quotes my self, but I am interested (for once!) in which quotes you base this assumption from. Post them and I will gladly deconstruct that.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Leper's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

"Give me solid testable repeatable evidence of a claim of yours, and I will be happy to admit you are right if the evidence holds up and is true."

You expect that because you don't believe in God others have no right to say it is so or that it is true or that you're wrong? The most important thing in discussion is that everyone understands each other, not that they please you with the way they form their sentences.

LogicFTW: "You forget, I do not believe in any god of anytype, at all. I assign no human characteristics to a god, because I very confidently believe there is no such thing."

Yes, you do even if in a hypothetical sense. If I said 'I don't believe in santa calus because why would an elderly man with a long white beard dressed in a red suit fly in the sky with reindeers?' It would be as much as to say that I don't believe in santa Claus, but I nevertheless assume that santa Claus is an elderly man with a long white beard, dressed in a red suit who flies in the sky with reindeers.

LogicFTW: "How did they mistranslate a DAY?"

They didn't mistranslate it. It can simply have different meanings also so it can be translated correctly in many ways. Translating it as "a day" isn't really a problem if one doesn't interpret it literally and the whole of the bible should definitely not be taken literally. Also the same word occurs many many times in the Bible which always affects the translation of a word in context with the rest of the translation.

LogicFTW: "Why would I care about some quote from some book that is completely unevidenced and obviously is not based in anyway in reality? Sounds like a waste of time to me."

It's relevant to the discussion about God and time from human percpective. Whether you're interested or not is secondary. But before you criticize a matter it would be good to understand it clearly and to be interested in understanding it.

LogicFTW: "I certainly did not receive that message."

Not accepting it isn't the same as not having received it. If a letter comes to your home and you don't send one back or do anything about it the letter has nevertheless been received by you.

LogicFTW: "This is why I did not say the words "flood" I have heard the Qur'an has its own versions of global catastrophe created by an (angry?) god."

Nothing comes to my mind.

56:58 'Just consider (the semen) that you emit,'

56:59 'Do you create it, or We are its creator?'

56:60 'We have incorporated death in your constitution, and We shall not be hindered'

56:61 'from that We may replace (someothers) similar to you; and We may make you grow into (a new creation) which you do not comprehend.'

6:133 'And thy Sustainer alone is self-sufficient, limitless in His grace. If He so wills, He may put an end to you and thereafter cause whom He wills to succeed you - even as He has brought you into being out of other people's seed.'

30:27 'He it is Who originates creation, then repeats it; and it is easy for Him. To Him belongs the highest similitude in the heavens and the earth, and He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.'

71:14 'Seeing that it is He that has created you in diverse stages?'

55:14 'He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery,'

76:28 'It is We Who created them, and We have made their joints strong; but, when We will, We can substitute the like of them by a complete change.'

There's more but let that be for now.

LogicFTW's picture
@Leper

@Leper

You expect that because you don't believe in God others have no right to say it is so or that it is true or that you're wrong?

I think everyone has a right to say if they believe in a god(s) or not. They even have the right to say it is true. They even have the right to "say" that I am wrong. But they do not have the right to push their agenda on others. Especially children that are nearly defenseless to these ideas. If religion/god was just talk among consenting adults, while I would not necessarily like it, I would not have no problem with it. But it is not that at all. Religion overall (especially in the west) is getting better, but certainly religious past was brutal, violent and was forced on a great many people by the more powerful (militarly) religion.

The most important thing in discussion is that everyone understands each other, not that they please you with the way they form their sentences.

Agreed for the most part. Communication / discussion /understanding is very important, but a big part of that is well formed sentences.

Yes, you do even if in a hypothetical sense.

God is not my idea, I did not make up god, and I reject what other people say about their various god concepts. And what do they say about their god 90+ percent of the time, stuff that humanizes the god. The stories that has god communicating to us in one way or another in a supposed intelligent manner (well more like intelligence of humans around the time the books were written, but that is not the point im driving at here...) I only humanize the god concept in response to what other people that do believe in god describe and talk about it. Again precise definition of your particular god idea is needed here if you want to refute what I say about your particular god being anthropomorphized. (Of which I most certainly, and easily will!)

They didn't mistranslate it. It can simply have different meanings also so it can be translated correctly in many ways.

So you don't like to use the word "mistranslated" and instead would like to use misinterpreted. Got it. Means the same thing. Precise information got lost. The validity of the books (if there was any to begin with) has gotten lost over the centuries whether mistranslated or misinterpreted. Always cracks me up that people think these books are somehow devine. They are horribly outdated books that are forced to be that way because its supposed to be some sort of "proof" of the god claimed theirin. Truly hilarious state of affairs (to me) the major religions have to deal with this. The holy books are often central and required for their religions but they are a giant anchor that pulls the entire religion down to murky waters of obvious BS.

But before you criticize a matter it would be good to understand it clearly and to be interested in understanding it.

I actually, perhaps incorrectly, think that I understand it in a "meta" or macro sense your religion/god concept far better than you do, it is called outside perspective, and I am not clouded with constant need to rationalize the religion to try and make it's crazy claims work.

Not accepting it isn't the same as not having received it. If a letter comes to your home and you don't send one back or do anything about it the letter has nevertheless been received by you.

So you just compared your all mighty god concepts ability to communicate to that of the postal service? Wow! I would be hard pressed to come up with a better insult to your god concept's power/intelligence then that!

Does that mean you're usually not interested or that you have been disappointed I have not cited verses before?

I apologize if I was not clear. It is I am usually not interested in quotes from Quran or really any holy book, but I was for once interested in you listing how evolution is in the Quran.
The quote list you gave was extremely vague, and right inline with knowledge of desert nomads ~1500 years ago. Seed/semen = new life? Oh yeah? Really?? what an insight?!?! (Sarcasm)
Human life happens in diverse stages? I could figure that much out just looking at babies and watching them grow up! I see nothing in there that indicates an intelligence that knew and explained evolution in those quotes. No specific details, no, woah! Where did that come from moments of: "wow how did they possibly know that???"

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sheldon's picture
"Leper "You expect that

"Leper "You expect that (solid testable repeatable evidence of a claim) because you don't believe in God"

Nonsense, you expect to ignore the fact you can't demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity, because you want to believe in your own deity.

Leper "isn't really a problem if one doesn't interpret it literally "

Hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahah, that BS get's funnier every time a desperate apologists trots it out.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Leper - "But before you

Re: Leper - "But before you criticize a matter it would be good to understand it clearly and to be interested in understanding it."

OH...My goodness gracious!... ROFLMAO... THIS statement coming from an individual who openly claimed to have ZERO interest in learning about atheists/atheism! Hypocrisy much?.... *sudden concerned look*... Oh, no... I feel an uncontrollable fit of laughter brewing... Bwaaaaa-haaaaa-haaaaa-haaaaaa...!!!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tin Man

@ Tin Man

Re: Leper - "But before you criticize a matter it would be good to understand it clearly and to be interested in understanding it."

Nearly took out my Super Duper WOW! Irony Meter, at least the manual shut off worked...the bullshit detector is still whining in the corner with small puffs of smoke coming from under the base.

Leper's picture
@LogicFTW

@LogicFTW

"I know I can go look up the quotes my self, but I am interested (for once!) in which quotes you base this assumption from."

Does that mean you're usually not interested or that you have been disappointed I have not cited verses before?

Randomhero1982's picture
Not accepting it isn't the

Not accepting it isn't the same as not having received it. If a letter comes to your home and you don't send one back or do anything about it the letter has nevertheless been received by you.

Albeit, one example is a material and verifiable entity, the other is a metaphysical claim that cannot be proven at all.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
So the teleological argument.

So the teleological argument.

The early universe does appear to be finely tuned and with low entropy.
However, there is no evidence that this 'fine tuning' was specifically in order for life to exist.

The maximum amount of entropy possible for our universe is an absolutely huge number,
compared to the orders of magnitude lower value for the early universe.

So we can conclude that there may be fine tuning, but you cannot claim it was for life to exist.

LogicFTW's picture
The teleological argument

The teleological argument when used by theist apologist always crack me up.

Even if somehow it was proven to be a solid, reliable argument that theist apologist were absolutely correct on, they still gained... absolutely nothing in terms of realizing their god concepts. All they would have established if they were somehow correct, is that there is some sort of entity that created the universe, but are left with the problem of: "well what created it?" And they are back at square 1 with the same question. They may try to handwave away well "god is timeless" but that creates far more questions and problems then it originally solves.

Worse still there is absolutely no way to connect this "first mover/teleological argument to their particular god concept. They spend all this effort trying to push this for their god, when it does nothing to further the likelihood of their god concept, if anything it further distances their god concept from plausible reality. And still does not solve the problem of utter lack of any sort of real evidence.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I have to agree with your

I have to agree with your sentiments there.

Furthermore, I would add that what makes the teleological argument even weaker is, you may indeed claim that the universe is fine tuned. And let's say we accept that premise for a moment, you are still left with far more explaining to do!

1) How are we defining 'life'?
2) Can we demonstrate other types of life could not arise?

The major issue here for theists is that they privilege their own existence and only consider life as to be what they are, or what we see on our fair planet.

But they must concede that if you 'tweek' the controls (hypothetically speaking of course) that dictate 'fine-tuning',
You must except that there is an absolute plethora of possibilities of varying forms of life that could occur.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The "fine tuning" in nature

The "fine tuning" in nature comes from when it isn't possible (or at least no one has managed) to calculate the value of a parameter of a system from first principles (from theory), and instead they must physically measure this value in the real world, so it can be plugged into later calculations. That plugging in of experimental values instead of theoretical values is called "fine tuning". It is simply a scheme to continue doing science when our ignorance would have otherwise stopped us in our tracks. In short, it is a work-around.

Calilasseia's picture
Indeed, the questions that

Indeed, the questions that physicists ask about the values of various constants, are radically at variance with the assertions erected by supernaturalists on this topic, who are only interested in pressing active research topics into duplicitous apologetic service.

What physicists actually ask when faced with these constants, are questions such as:

[1] What mechanism is responsible for those constants taking the current observed values?

[2] Does that mechanism permit those constants to take other values?

[3] Is whatever mechanism applicable to this problem itself a parameter-free mechanism?

All of this, is, of course, yet another active research topic.

Sheldon's picture
So can any theist, explain

So can any theist, explain how complexity evidence design? Or how design evidences a deity?

Without the usual appeal to ignorance fallacy obviously. NB please do note the words explain, how, and evidence in both questions.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sheldon - So can any theist,

Sheldon - So can any theist, explain how complexity evidence design?

First, I'd like to see one just define this complexity, since it seems they are not using it a way I'm accustom to. Even in science, complexity is defined in different ways in different fields. I've tried several times to no avail to figure out which (if any) of those uses of the word the theists mean.

As far as I can tell, the way it is being used is a tautology (in that it means what they need it to mean, even if that contradicts how it was used previously).

Calilasseia's picture
I'm all too familiar with

I'm all too familiar with supernaturalists being duplicitously fluid with definitions, when said mendacity suits their apologetic convenience. The fact that such behaviour would be considered anathema in any proper scientific discussion, where stable, precise and universally agreed definitions are the norm, never seems to trouble them.

But having seen a decade's worth of fallacies presented as purportedly constituting "logical" deductions, quote mining, and in some cases readily detectable outright lying, emanating from the creationist crowd in particular, your observation does not surprise me in the least.

cranky47's picture
I liked your post.

I liked your post.

I feel obliged to say ; fair dinkum mate, that first paragraph is a ridgey didge work of art.

Sheldon's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

Creationist propaganda reminds me of one the funniest cartoons I've ever seen. The cartoon shows a witch doctor leaning over a patient/corpse, with his hands on his hips and shaking his head, and the caption reads...There's still so much we don't know.

Argumentum ad ignorantaim

The argumentum ad ignorantiam (also known as the argument from ignorance) is a logical fallacy wherein the speaker claims that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Leper - ...however the actual

Leper - ...however the actual word in the original version [of the Bible] doesn't have to be translated as "a day"...

You have never seen the original version.

Sheldon's picture
Leper - ...however the actual

Leper - ...however the actual word in the original version [of the Bible] doesn't have to be translated as "a day"...

Nyarlathotep "You have never seen the original version."

Check mate...

Cognostic's picture
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ..... Someone brought up the "Original Version of the Bible." HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... I can only assume they meant the King James Bible. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

I prefer the KJV because I like to hear it exactly the way God said it. (Humor and Sarcasm).

Sheldon's picture
Well page 4 almost complete,

Well page 4 almost complete, and not one theist has been able to explain how complexity evidences design, or how design evidences a deity. Just rehashing the same tired old argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Quelle surprise.

Cognostic's picture
@Sheldon: "not one theist

@Sheldon: "not one theist has been able to explain how complexity evidences design." Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Christians just don't keep up on current trends in arguments for the existence of god. If they did there would be a lot more prepositionalists and transcendentalists on the site trying to spread their bullshit. The fact that they are attempting to use a teleological argument tells you that they are not the brightest theists in the bunch.

Calilasseia's picture
Not that presuppositionalists

Not that presuppositionalists are particularly bright either, they're just more openly mendacious with respect to their flouting of the rules of proper discourse.

Meanwhile ...

If the universe is designed, that indicates a designer.

And no supernaturalist has come within light years of converting the first part of that conditional into an evidentially supported postulate. Indeed, I've never met a supernaturalist who knows what is required here. Let's see if you can be the first to break with that precedent, shall we? Once again, no prompting from the rest of you, I want to see if this individual is capable of doing the requisite homework unaided. Here's a clue: four steps are required. Know what they are?

Calilasseia's picture
Still waiting to see any

Still waiting to see any supernaturalist answer the challenge in my previous post above ...

LogicFTW's picture
I imagine it would be the

@Calilasseia
I imagine it would be the rare theist apologist that could even properly understand the question you put forth.

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.