Evidence for design

292 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sapporo's picture
A theist cannot explain who

A theist cannot explain who fined tuned god.

A theist believes they are necessary because they exist and attributes this fact to design, rather than understand that things exist precisely because they are necessary according to the laws of nature otherwise the laws of nature would be different.

The_Quieter's picture
This entire thread is

This entire thread is basically one huge Begging the Question fallacy in which the original poster just flat refuses to accept that they've been shown why they are making a flawed premise and then turns around saying that because you don't answer a question based on a flawed premise that you're 'avoiding the question'.

No, they're not avoiding the question. You are making basically sitting there saying "my premise is that because of these misunderstood factors the universe is obviously designed so you must explain why based on these factors I say are design don't prove a god"

And the responses you're getting basically amount to "here is why you've misunderstood these factors and here are factors you have not considered"

To which the original poster is going "how come you won't answer the question based on MY premise?"

Because your premise is wrong. You've been shown why it is wrong. You don't like that or can't admit that so you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it and instead cling to a 'didn't answer the question' non-argument to preserve your own false premises.

Tin-Man's picture
Blink nailed it!...*clap-clap

Blink nailed it!...*clap-clap-clap-clap-clap*...

Someone's picture


I noticed that I had not answered. What you wrote was rubbish, and in post

If you disagree, then simply paraphrase the arguments and point out a fallacy in the arguments. It is not like I haven't repeatedly challenged the atheists on the forum to do so. But none have (like I predicted).

The_Quieter's picture
Okay if you insist on having

Okay if you insist on having yet another person make you look like a complete idiot after I already explained why you were one given all the other replies to you then by all means.

The age old answer to the fine tuning argument is the puddle that says the hole it exists in is perfect for it and therefore must have been designed for for the puddle. It fails to recognize that it is the puddle that fits the hole and not the hole that fits the puddle. This is your fine tuning argument at its core. What you see in the universe is not a 'a universe designed to fit a certain thing' but 'things in the universe fitting what the universe allows'.

This is what I meant when I said your question had been answered multiple times and you simply refuse to accept the answer. You are making a flawed premise and being shown why then demanding to know why we don't answer it based on your flawed premise.

By the way if you're going to argue that universe or even life itself was 'done that way on purpose' you're saying that the being that did it is a completely and utter moron. Let's design a planet and then just for the lulz put a bunch of giant objects that can obliterate life on it randomly.

Also what you are proposing are not "theories" but pure damn speculation based on emotionalism.Theories in science come with evidence to support them. You've offered none.

Did you want me to knock your second nonsensical idea out of the park too?

By the way: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

begging the question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

Sheldon's picture
Someone's left the building.

Someone's left the building.

I'm gonna miss his endless repetitious unevidenced claims, and his duplicitous game of repeat the question.

arakish's picture
And I think you and I both

And I think you and I both deserve this: https://i.imgur.com/7bFN0wO.jpg


arakish's picture
And what was it I said in a

And what was it I said in a previous post?

Something like, "Someone shall ignore the actual answers in favor of saying he is right and everyone is wrong."

As Sheldon asked, "Sound like someone familiar?"

My Answer: Yes.


Sapporo's picture
It is impossible for me to

It is impossible for me to conceive of a reality without the concept of cows. Therefore Kamadhenu exists.

There are some people who are able to conceive of reality in which no gods experience a part of. Therefore, reality is one without deities. Or at least, it must logically be proportionate to the number of people who believe that. Reality must have been fine-tuned in order for this to make complete sense. Unless of course it is the work of a trickster god, trying to make out that utter chaos is actually the source of all order.

The_Quieter's picture
It's the thread that never

It's the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends, SOMEONE started it posting in it not knowing what it is and he'll keep on posting in it because it's the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends....

arakish's picture
Yeah... uhh... rmfr




arakish's picture
yeah, you are definitely

yeah, you are definitely correct blinknight. All he does is copy and paste the same exact bullshit without any evidence.

I think he has written a script that does it automatically for him when a person replies specifically to one of his copy and paste.

Let's see how correct I am. If so, then there will be no reply to this post except by another person.


The_Quieter's picture
"You didn't answer the

"You didn't answer the question!"

Was literally his response to me explaining why his question was malformed and why he was being told such.

mickron88's picture
i wonder if someone or

i wonder if someone or someone will give up..

i bet not...

who's someone that doesn't stop someone to somehow stop this
someone's game?

can someone answer? *hanging on arakish's trunks*
a little higher arak bruh...thank you

Someone's picture
For reader's new to the

For reader's new to the thread, or those that have been reading it, I will just restate the arguments, as the second was later reworded, and offer explanation for what each is doing;

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 theorist 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 physicalist theories there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured). The theist theorists 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.


Both arguments (the first, and the reworded second) are about comparing theories. Theist theories and physicalist theories. The theist theories are obviously theories involving the existence of deities, whereas the physicalist ones aren't. It is not assumed that the theist theories are correct, so there is no question begging that they are. The first argument uses a fine tuning argument to argue that the evidence favours the theist theories. The second argument examines the compatibility of the theist theories and physicalist theories with the evidence, and points out that none of the physicalist theories are compatible. So the favouring of the theist theories is done by argument. There is no assuming the conclusion, and as mentioned no question begging. Also neither argument concludes that it is not possible that physicalism could be correct, as neither perform an argument from ignorance such as arguing that because we lack physicalist theories which would change the evaluation, that physicalism *must* be false. They are just evaluations of where the evidence currently points to with respect to theist and physicalist theories.

So far no one on this forum has been able to paraphrase and point out an problem with the reasoning in either.

NewSkeptic's picture
as much a pile of shit as

as much a pile of shit as when first proposed. If there is a god, would he mercifully let this nonsense end.

The_Quieter's picture
For those new to the thread

For those new to the thread he's had it explained to him why he is wrong up one side and down the other and all he does is jump up and down saying that you won't answer the question based on his flawed premise.

Someone's picture
And NewSkeptic comes on for

And NewSkeptic comes on for the atheists, aiming at pointing out a flaw with the reasoning, because if no flaw this is pretty embarrassing for the Atheist Republic. He aims, and then shoots wide of the goal. When I state wide, I mean it was like he didn't even have the confidence to actually try to take a shot. Is this the best the Atheist Republic has to offer?

NewSkeptic's picture
Your logic, for what its

Your logic, for what its worth has been ripped apart at the sub-atomic level already. There is no more meat on the bone, but there you are, gnawing on it anyway. That you can't see how soundly you've been defeated is both laughable and somewhat sad.

Someone's picture
Well if you are not just

Well if you are not just another lying atheist, why don't you point out the flaws with the arguments. 2 strikes so far, 2 misses. The goalie resets, and taunts the striker to actually even make an attempt which would require the goalie to even have to make a save....

The_Quieter's picture
Here let me do it again.

Here let me do it again.

Your 'fine tuned' argument boils down to a puddle saying that the hole must have been designed for it because the puddle fits it so perfectly. The reality is that the puddle fits the hole and not the hole that fits the puddle.

Similarly you look around at the universe and say that it must be designed because everything fits it so perfectly.

The universe is the hole while you're trying to make it the puddle. The puddle is everything that "fits" this universe conforming to the shape of the "hole" that is the universe.

There. You've had it explained why your fine tuning argument is nonsense. You may get back to jumping up and down saying that we didn't answer your question based on your flawed understanding now. We don't have to share your flawed understanding.

NewSkeptic's picture
The ball has whizzed by you

The ball has whizzed by you multiple times but you were too blind and arrogant to see it. You experienced it and don't even know it.

You are but a spoiled child saying "na na na na na" because you are too ignorant to see how ignorant you are. The other kids are bored and they don't like you, so home they go.

NewSkeptic's picture
The ball has whizzed by you

double post

Someone's picture
The striker claims as he is

The striker claims as he is carried off to be checked for use for hallucinogens. The goalie still stands, despite claims for false goals when no flaw with the arguments have been pointed out. The goalie asks for the striker to be allowed another go. As mentioned earlier, if the striker is not another atheist liar then the striker should be able to aim at the relevant point of the net to require the goalie to make a save.

Newsflash: A member of the crowd has brought on an extension cable and it seems as though the goalie is brewing himself a cup of tea!

NewSkeptic's picture
You can have the last word -

You can have the last word - it will make no more sense than your first.

SEE YA!!!!

Someone's picture
Said the striker in the

Said the striker in the "Atheist Republic" strip while it ran off to its legal guardian while crying uncontrollably.

But I think what we have to remember on this "Atheist Republic" forum is that no one in the "Atheist Republic" strip has shown more fortitude, or more determination than that striker!

arakish's picture
Answer this:

Answer this:

What in 7734 is a physicalist?

I have asked before but you have never answered.


Someone's picture


A person who believes in physicalism or materialism (the two words can be considered interchangeable).


arakish's picture
Ah, I see. Physicalist and

Ah, I see. Physicalist and Physicalism is nothing more than a hypothesis. Meaning is nothing more than word salad bullshit.

It is nothing more than a thought, an imaginative figment, flimflam horse hoowhee.

No wonder my Spell Checkers (which are the latest) keep flagging those words as misspellings. The words do not exist except for being some fake, fraudulent, counterfeited, assumed, concocted, phony, fictitious, deceitful, dishonest, bamboozling, double-dealing... In just one word: LIES.

Hell, if I did not have work to do, I could continue mine own word salad of everything you have said in this thread and others, continuing that list of synonyms...

You, kind sir, ARE an Absolutist. And there is one fact about ALL Absolutists. THEY ARE ALL LIARS. None know how to speak forsoothly.



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.