Arguing with an ID fan

hammegk said:
Beginning with the 19 or so "magic constants" that are necesary to allow our universe to be as it was, is and will be; then everywhere I look.
I'd still like an explanation of what you meant by this, hammegk. I've got some guesses, but since it's been a while since I've had an argument about intelligent design, I'd rather not run the risk of putting up straw men by making assumptions.
 
Okay, I know about those constants, for the most part, but what about their existence says anything about design?
 
hammegk said:


These guys are at 26 rather than 19 -- but I'd mentioned "about 19" as a "guess".

And how do you know that these numbers are any more "necessary" to "allow" our current universe than the exact shape ofa puddle is "necesssary" to "allow" the shape of the hole that it fills?
 
new drkitten said:
And how do you know that these numbers are any more "necessary" to "allow" our current universe than the exact shape ofa puddle is "necesssary" to "allow" the shape of the hole that it fills?
Obviously, I don't "know" anymore than you do. Most critical as I understand it is the formation of the correct elements over the correct time scales.

And I think of the mix as 'necessary and sufficent' to give rise to life, and intelligence (of which homo sap is the most advanced form we are aware of).

And perhaps 'ordained' is a better choice than 'allowed'. ;)
 
hammegk said:
Obviously, I don't "know" anymore than you do. Most critical as I understand it is the formation of the correct elements over the correct time scales.

Sounds like a mix of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Painting a bullseye around an already existing bullet hole) and is-ought confusion. How do we know that these heavy elements we're made of are "correct" and the time scale it took is "correct"?
 
A parable about Intelligent Design.

I used to work a lot in theater. A *lot*. And it's funny how the audience thinks that everything that happens on stage is exactly how it was planned to be. You do theater for any length of time, and you know it's simply not the case.

Two examples from the same show. A set that had to be assembled and disassembled every night had an old mantle clock on it as set decoration. One night, just as someone is mentioning that it's getting late and about time to go, the clock started striking. It had been jostled enough that the pendulum started swinging. Fortunately the clock struck eight times ... just about appropriate for the time of night.

Second example ... a partially drunk, recorked bottle of Irish stout (root beer, in fact) is set on the mantle while two actors sit at a table. Under the stage lights, pressure builds in the bottle, and just as one actor stands the cork flies into the air with a POP! The actor, with supreme presence of mind, looks at it, follows the trajectory, puts out his hand, and catches the cork.

What does this have to do with ID? After the show while talking to audience members, we had to convince them that these were just coincidences. While they appeared to be planned and designed (they fit the nature of the play exactly), they were nothing more than random occurances. They simply could not believe we hadn't planned the cork gag.

Third example ... if you've never known the terror of "going up" on stage, count yourself lucky. In one show I was in, an actor completely forgot his next line, looked thoughtfully skyward, walked around the set introspectively, sat for a moment, fiddled with stuff on the desk ... and then remembered the line and continued. He was afterwards complemented by an audience member who found his portrayal of angst at that moment to be very moving and a wonderful job of acting (when in fact he was just in terror, his mind racing to try to remember a line).

An audience who sees a finished product, and who is disposed to think that everything they see was meticulously planned will assume that everything is designed to happen a particular way. 'Taint so.

Just another annoying pebble to toss into the brain-shoe. No claim of proof, just something to think about.

- Timothy
 
hammegk said:
Obviously, I don't "know" anymore than you do. Most critical as I understand it is the formation of the correct elements over the correct time scales.


And how do you understand it? In what way are the elements "critical"? How would the time scales have been shifted if these fundamental constants had been different? And why doesn't the anthropic principle answer these questions without recourse to a designer?

You made a fairly forthright claim earlier : 'The 19 or so "magic constants" [are] necesary to allow our universe to be as it was, is and will be; then everywhere I look.'

Why should I care if the universe is, but in a different way? What boots it if my house is painted red or blue, as long as it keeps the rain off? What is the necessity of the universe having its exact configuration?
 
BronzeDog said:
Sounds like a mix of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Painting a bullseye around an already existing bullet hole) and is-ought confusion. How do we know that these heavy elements we're made of are "correct" and the time scale it took is "correct"?
We share one fact -- thought exists.

Secondarily, "our" universe is perceived, and we are communicating. :)
 
hammegk said:
We share one fact -- thought exists.

Secondarily, "our" universe is perceived, and we are communicating. :)
I don't see the point you're trying to make.
 
hammegk said:
We share one fact -- thought exists.

Secondarily, "our" universe is perceived, and we are communicating. :)

I submit that these facts are irrelevant to the question at hand.

We share many other irrelevant facts: lead is perceived as being denser than styrofoam, water is observed to boil at 100C at sea level, the principal square root of a positive integer is always positive but not always an integer, and the country immediately to the south of Canada is the United States of America.

Please explain how 'these heavy elements we're made of are "correct" and the time scale it took is "correct"' is a consequence of any set of facts that we share.
 
new drkitten said:
And how do you understand it? In what way are the elements "critical"? How would the time scales have been shifted if these fundamental constants had been different?
The most blatent criticalities allow the universe to evolve as it did, and now sustain us as we perceive it.


And why doesn't the anthropic principle answer these questions without recourse to a designer?
It does. Please explain why invoking the strong anthropic principle is not just a different way to say 'I dunno; goddidit'.


Why should I care if the universe is, but in a different way? What boots it if my house is painted red or blue, as long as it keeps the rain off? What is the necessity of the universe having its exact configuration?
As long as we are perceiving it, we don't care. Without the fine tuning we wouldn't be -- at least not as beings in any sense similar to ourselves.
 
hammegk said:


It does. Please explain why invoking the strong anthropic principle is not just a different way to say 'I dunno; goddidit'.

Please explain why it is necessary specifically to invoke the strong anthropic principle instead of the weaker variations which have equal explanatory force, but make fewer ontological assumptions.




As long as we are perceiving it, we don't care. Without the fine tuning we wouldn't be -- at least not as beings in any sense similar to ourselves.

If we are perceiving the universe, then the universe demonstrably is configured in such a way as to allow life capable of perceiving it to exist. Any beings capable of perceiving whatever universe they live in must therefore be similar to ourselves in their capacity to observe the universe, by definition.
 
hammegk said:
It does. Please explain why invoking the strong anthropic principle is not just a different way to say 'I dunno; goddidit'.
My understanding of the anthropic principle: If the random coin flip came up tails, we wouldn't be around to notice it was tails. (Someone else might be.) If the coin flip came up heads, we'd be sitting around here, able to see the coin came up heads. The fact that we're here only tells us the coin came up heads, nothing about whether or not it did so randomly or by design.

As long as we are perceiving it, we don't care. Without the fine tuning we wouldn't be -- at least not as beings in any sense similar to ourselves.
What's so special about us being here in this form? It doesn't strike me as any more designed than any alternate possibility. If things did come out a different way as a result of different starting circumstances, they'd be having this argument and refering to us as hypothetical. It's also possible that there wouldn't be anyone around.
 
BronzeDog said:
The fact that we're here only tells us the coin came up heads, nothing about whether or not it did so randomly or by design.
Agreed. But it was a bit more complex than a coin-flip (fine-tune the 26 constants for a start).

I do agree Many Worlds is a logical possibility -- but only 1 will ever affect and/or effect us.


What's so special about us being here in this form?
Only the facts that you, and I, perceive ourselves as we are, and perceive ourselves as communicating in this universe. :D
 
hammegk said:
Agreed. But it was a bit more complex than a coin-flip (fine-tune the 26 constants for a start).

I do agree Many Worlds is a logical possibility -- but only 1 will ever affect and/or effect us.
True, there are more possibly random factors involved. More coins, or maybe dice. Imagine I'm playing a board game and a number of lucky rolls make the game easy for me. I conclude that since I'm here, experiencing those lucky rolls, the dice must have been rigged to aid me, when just as easily they could have gone wrong, and my alternate self would be there bemoaning his bad luck while another player makes the same argument that the dice must have been rigged in his favor.

Only the facts that you, and I, perceive ourselves as we are, and perceive ourselves as communicating in this universe. :D
Again, I fail to see your point. What's so special about us being here perceiving and communicating stuff?
 
I will ask again.

WHO designed the final shape of the Mandelbrot Set? Does this shows that there are "designs" that doesnt need "a designer"?
 
Why are you debating someone who believes that life popped out of nothing ? You might as well debate Mother Goose or Hansel and Gretel. To debate them is to acknowledge that their fantasy has some merit.
 
Francois Tremblay said:
Why are you debating someone who believes that life popped out of nothing ? You might as well debate Mother Goose or Hansel and Gretel. To debate them is to acknowledge that their fantasy has some merit.
You mean the few here who will actually admit they accept 100% atheism/materialism? ;)
 
We look at the universe through our own eyes, which are the eyes of designers--no wonder we see design everywhere, just like we see images of the mother of god on windows, bridge abutments, and grilled cheese sandwiches.

Proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism have been repeating the same arguments that were voiced 200 years ago (and more), only difference this time around is that they use words and phrases abducted from science and mathematics. But whereas evolutionary theory has provided the basis for considerable scientific research and additions to our knowledge of the world about us, ID has produced no scientific research and no new knowledge.

It's not without reason that scientists work to convince other scientists of new hypotheses but ID proponents work to convince kids and school boards. They have practically no science to present to the scientific community, and pretty much all of what they have presented has been refuted.
 

Back
Top Bottom