Case So Bad, Jury Excused From Service...
News1 min ago
So Called Intelligent Design ... Actually Kind Of Dumb Isnt It?
77 Answers
people claim that gods way is 'intelligent' design ... on the basis that we are just too well made to have happened naturally - and that god only cares about us and thats why animals dont have souls etc
but if that was the case, and god only cared about humans and made the world for our benefit, then why is there are a whole load of utterly pointless and dangerous creatures in it?
if the sole purpose of earth is to home humans - why is so much of it inhospitable, dangerous and just horrible?
he cannot blame us for all this - blame our freewill - which is the excuse he usually uses for anything bad that happens - because we did not create bacteria, volcanoes, termites, swamps etc etc
now i know with the worlds ecosystems in place all these things are necessary - but why have eco systems at all?
why make it so we need insects and bacteria etc?
why isnt the planet just covered in stuff that doesnt need any sort of ecosystem - surely the really intelligent thing would have been to make everything self contained? and nice. and clean. etc
why arent the only living species on the planet, humans and human food - ie cows, pigs etc ... and maybe a few that are just nice, like cats and dogs etc?
why create all the stuff we never need or even see and can kill us?
so whats so intelligent about it?
if you worked in a company and were tasked with creating a species and habitat for them - you would be sacked in utter disgrace if you created somewhere that looks nice for them ... and then added a load of pointless stuff, wasted spaces and dangerous stuff ...wouldnt you?
no-one would be calling you 'intelligent'
we dont design our houses to be full of dangerous and inhospitable areas do we? and we do our best to keep anything dangerous out... we aim to make it as nice and comfortable as possible....so why hasnt god done the same?
the world is full of amazing, wonderful and interesting things, but surely thats not the only reason for their existence? - just for us to look at pictures of them in books and go 'ooh, cool!' - because most humans will never ever see most of it for real.
so, creationists, can you tell me why he did it this way?
but if that was the case, and god only cared about humans and made the world for our benefit, then why is there are a whole load of utterly pointless and dangerous creatures in it?
if the sole purpose of earth is to home humans - why is so much of it inhospitable, dangerous and just horrible?
he cannot blame us for all this - blame our freewill - which is the excuse he usually uses for anything bad that happens - because we did not create bacteria, volcanoes, termites, swamps etc etc
now i know with the worlds ecosystems in place all these things are necessary - but why have eco systems at all?
why make it so we need insects and bacteria etc?
why isnt the planet just covered in stuff that doesnt need any sort of ecosystem - surely the really intelligent thing would have been to make everything self contained? and nice. and clean. etc
why arent the only living species on the planet, humans and human food - ie cows, pigs etc ... and maybe a few that are just nice, like cats and dogs etc?
why create all the stuff we never need or even see and can kill us?
so whats so intelligent about it?
if you worked in a company and were tasked with creating a species and habitat for them - you would be sacked in utter disgrace if you created somewhere that looks nice for them ... and then added a load of pointless stuff, wasted spaces and dangerous stuff ...wouldnt you?
no-one would be calling you 'intelligent'
we dont design our houses to be full of dangerous and inhospitable areas do we? and we do our best to keep anything dangerous out... we aim to make it as nice and comfortable as possible....so why hasnt god done the same?
the world is full of amazing, wonderful and interesting things, but surely thats not the only reason for their existence? - just for us to look at pictures of them in books and go 'ooh, cool!' - because most humans will never ever see most of it for real.
so, creationists, can you tell me why he did it this way?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LG Even greater! - On what do you base that assertion? The teleological, fine tuning of the universe is so compelling that virtually all of the scientific community find it awesome and cannot account for the miraculous chances of existence. I think it is for you to help them (and me) and present an explanation.
-- answer removed --
birdie; // I can only assume that you haven't heard of nor understand the Anthropic Principle//
I'm afraid the boot is on the other foot here, do you know what you are talking about? I first became aware of the principle in 1987 when I watched the eponymous BBC Horizon programme which was opened by David Deutsch of Oxford University. I made a DVD of it at the time, which I still have, and have watched many times.
If you think the anthropic principle negates intelligent design you could not be further from the truth. It might be possible to obtain the Horizon programme, but if not you could try "The Anthropic Principle - an Outstanding Primer on Intelligent Design" by Dr Paul Davies on CD, the cover of which bears the quote 'God does not play dice with intelligent design' - Albert Einstein.
LG; To quote you; "Sheesh!". Both the Teleological and the Fine Tuning arguments point to intelligent design of the universe,- in fact that is precisely what the former actually is. How can you contradict this?
I'm afraid the boot is on the other foot here, do you know what you are talking about? I first became aware of the principle in 1987 when I watched the eponymous BBC Horizon programme which was opened by David Deutsch of Oxford University. I made a DVD of it at the time, which I still have, and have watched many times.
If you think the anthropic principle negates intelligent design you could not be further from the truth. It might be possible to obtain the Horizon programme, but if not you could try "The Anthropic Principle - an Outstanding Primer on Intelligent Design" by Dr Paul Davies on CD, the cover of which bears the quote 'God does not play dice with intelligent design' - Albert Einstein.
LG; To quote you; "Sheesh!". Both the Teleological and the Fine Tuning arguments point to intelligent design of the universe,- in fact that is precisely what the former actually is. How can you contradict this?
@Khanndro - I really do not have time right now to rebut this nonsense. The idea of a fine tuned universe - our universe-being designed by a creator entity to perfectly fit ourselves is simply, ridiculous.Evolution points us to the far more likely explanation - we are evolved as we are, adapted as we are to the universal constants, because of the selection pressures that such constants indirectly impose.
Briefly - The fine tuning of the universe -those physical constants you are soooo fond of - actually favour the formation of black holes far more than they do life as we know it - is your creator god then actually trying for black holes, and we are a by- product?
Your argument rests upon the idea that if the constants were to change, then it would alter everything - but that is only true if the relationship between the constants remains the same - not necessarily so.
Based upon the evidence to date, the universe is not actually fine tuned for us to live - we know of only one civilisation like ours, which is ,er, ours - out of all of the hundreds and billion of stars and countless more planets, all the proof we have of life is contained within a small layer of atmosphere on one planet. Of course, the probability that their life has developed elsewhere in the universe remains reasonably good, but we have no evidence as yet of that.
So, fine tuned for us? The evidence suggests otherwise. What those who argue for a fine-tuned universe as being evidence for a creator are falling for is a kind of paradoilia - seeing and attributing undue weight and significance to something,seeing patterns and relationships and attributing causality and significance to them - a common enough feature in the delusional and irrational also.
As to why a creator god is so unlikely- thats because such a creator must be extraordinarily complex and able to circumvent the laws of physics more or less at will - You lot of believers just want to wave that away, and attribute it to magic, or because humanity is lacking in divine grace, or because we simply are not intelligent enough - But for such an idea to have any real traction you have to offer an explanation for that complexity, for that origin, for the precursors to such a creature. And, show some evidence of their existence, and of course, once again, you cannot - apart from that evidence that you make up.
It is the anthropic principle - and it is a mistake to view the universe through that particular lens - one that you appear to have fallen for big-time.....
Briefly - The fine tuning of the universe -those physical constants you are soooo fond of - actually favour the formation of black holes far more than they do life as we know it - is your creator god then actually trying for black holes, and we are a by- product?
Your argument rests upon the idea that if the constants were to change, then it would alter everything - but that is only true if the relationship between the constants remains the same - not necessarily so.
Based upon the evidence to date, the universe is not actually fine tuned for us to live - we know of only one civilisation like ours, which is ,er, ours - out of all of the hundreds and billion of stars and countless more planets, all the proof we have of life is contained within a small layer of atmosphere on one planet. Of course, the probability that their life has developed elsewhere in the universe remains reasonably good, but we have no evidence as yet of that.
So, fine tuned for us? The evidence suggests otherwise. What those who argue for a fine-tuned universe as being evidence for a creator are falling for is a kind of paradoilia - seeing and attributing undue weight and significance to something,seeing patterns and relationships and attributing causality and significance to them - a common enough feature in the delusional and irrational also.
As to why a creator god is so unlikely- thats because such a creator must be extraordinarily complex and able to circumvent the laws of physics more or less at will - You lot of believers just want to wave that away, and attribute it to magic, or because humanity is lacking in divine grace, or because we simply are not intelligent enough - But for such an idea to have any real traction you have to offer an explanation for that complexity, for that origin, for the precursors to such a creature. And, show some evidence of their existence, and of course, once again, you cannot - apart from that evidence that you make up.
It is the anthropic principle - and it is a mistake to view the universe through that particular lens - one that you appear to have fallen for big-time.....
LG: as usual, you are quick to attribute things to me which I have never said, and then proceed to attack them. I have not mentioned the word God, nor have I postulated the origins of the formation of life on earth, but life could not exist without the universe to host it, and it is to that I refer, and if you do not have any respect for the 'fine tuning' required for it's very existence, then you are, whatever you say, in something of a minority. Example; 'If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)'
Do you doubt the veracity of that analogy? There are many more examples of the principle, no doubt all of which you would wish to conveniently cast aside in your usual blinkered manner.
Do you doubt the veracity of that analogy? There are many more examples of the principle, no doubt all of which you would wish to conveniently cast aside in your usual blinkered manner.
Khandro
LG: as usual, you are quick to attribute things to me which I have never said, and then proceed to attack them. I have not mentioned the word God, nor have I postulated the origins of the formation of life on earth, but life could not exist without the universe to host it, and it is to that I refer, and if you do not have any respect for the 'fine tuning' required for it's very existence, then you are, whatever you say, in something of a minority. Example; 'If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)'
Do you doubt the veracity of that analogy? There are many more examples of the principle, no doubt all of which you would wish to conveniently cast aside in your usual blinkered manner.
13:58 Fri 08th Feb 2013
At the moment of the 'Big Bang' the odds of you posting the sequence of letters above at the time and place you did are far less likely, but that does not alter the reality that you did. Given the fact that reality happens to be the way it is, the likelihood of whatever has happened actually happening, including the existence of the universe we witness at this moment, is invariably precisely 100%.
Any given outcome is much more than proof of the possible, it is a manifestation of the inevitable. Attempts to rewrite reality, after the fact, as if refusal to accept the consequences can somehow alter the past, are futile.
LG: as usual, you are quick to attribute things to me which I have never said, and then proceed to attack them. I have not mentioned the word God, nor have I postulated the origins of the formation of life on earth, but life could not exist without the universe to host it, and it is to that I refer, and if you do not have any respect for the 'fine tuning' required for it's very existence, then you are, whatever you say, in something of a minority. Example; 'If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)'
Do you doubt the veracity of that analogy? There are many more examples of the principle, no doubt all of which you would wish to conveniently cast aside in your usual blinkered manner.
13:58 Fri 08th Feb 2013
At the moment of the 'Big Bang' the odds of you posting the sequence of letters above at the time and place you did are far less likely, but that does not alter the reality that you did. Given the fact that reality happens to be the way it is, the likelihood of whatever has happened actually happening, including the existence of the universe we witness at this moment, is invariably precisely 100%.
Any given outcome is much more than proof of the possible, it is a manifestation of the inevitable. Attempts to rewrite reality, after the fact, as if refusal to accept the consequences can somehow alter the past, are futile.
@Khandro - Sometimes, I really despair of your ability to comprehend the basic fundamentals of science.
Yes, of course life as it currently is is dependent upon those constants being as they are - but that is not an indication of a created universe! That is because life as we know it has adapted to those particular circumstances! To assert that somehow these particular constants have been "fine - tuned for life" - which phrase in itself implies a designer to apply the fine tuning - is absurd, and if you believe that, you are the one in a minority.
And make no mistake, for those people that like to rabbit on about a "fine -tuned universe", it is that "designed- by -a- creator-to -produce- life" concept that is behind it all.
In our universe, as it currently stands, with the evidence and observations that we have, it is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned to produce organic life as we know it- rather that, against all the odds, such life has arisen! This universe is far far better suited to the creation of black holes and rock and vacuum than it is organic life.
Yes, of course life as it currently is is dependent upon those constants being as they are - but that is not an indication of a created universe! That is because life as we know it has adapted to those particular circumstances! To assert that somehow these particular constants have been "fine - tuned for life" - which phrase in itself implies a designer to apply the fine tuning - is absurd, and if you believe that, you are the one in a minority.
And make no mistake, for those people that like to rabbit on about a "fine -tuned universe", it is that "designed- by -a- creator-to -produce- life" concept that is behind it all.
In our universe, as it currently stands, with the evidence and observations that we have, it is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned to produce organic life as we know it- rather that, against all the odds, such life has arisen! This universe is far far better suited to the creation of black holes and rock and vacuum than it is organic life.
LG; What is surprising about your patronising posts, is your unequivocal certainty in that you are correct, without ever offering any basis for your assertions other than stating a belief that every one else is wrong.
//In our universe, as it currently stands, with the evidence and observations that we have, it is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned to produce organic life as we know it- rather that, against all the odds, such life has arisen!// Err... I think that's called 'Fine Tuning'.
//In our universe, as it currently stands, with the evidence and observations that we have, it is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned to produce organic life as we know it- rather that, against all the odds, such life has arisen!// Err... I think that's called 'Fine Tuning'.
You wax lyrical about a fine tuned universe, triumphantly proclaim that such physical constants are ideally set for life as we know it - us, humans - to flourish - and that therefore this is evidence for a creator god.
But it isnt. The universe is largely hostile to humans. We cling precariously to the skin of just one planet that we know of, whilst the vast majority of the universe is stars, vacuum, cold matter and black holes.So that blows the whole idea of a universe ideally created for us completely out of the water.
Yes, the constants are needed for us to flourish - thats why life has adapted itself to its surroundings.
That's not evidence of a creator impulse - thats evidence of a naturalistic universe.
You mistake exasperation for patronage. You repeatedly spin-off speculation as scientific fact, and often resort to rudeness and insult yourself in response to posts. I am quite comfortable if you feel patronised.
I say that view is backwards, arse about face.
But it isnt. The universe is largely hostile to humans. We cling precariously to the skin of just one planet that we know of, whilst the vast majority of the universe is stars, vacuum, cold matter and black holes.So that blows the whole idea of a universe ideally created for us completely out of the water.
Yes, the constants are needed for us to flourish - thats why life has adapted itself to its surroundings.
That's not evidence of a creator impulse - thats evidence of a naturalistic universe.
You mistake exasperation for patronage. You repeatedly spin-off speculation as scientific fact, and often resort to rudeness and insult yourself in response to posts. I am quite comfortable if you feel patronised.
I say that view is backwards, arse about face.
-- answer removed --
birdie; You suggest that "the universe is 99.999% hostile to humans." and
see this solely as an "example of chemical and biological serendipity," and are prepared to leave it at that. Perhaps this is because you lack the imagination to look any further?
Would you like me to give you a reading list of eminent scientists who question your restricted and simplistic view, and by the use intellect and imagination, strive for answers beyond "serendipity"?
“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.”
― Albert Einstein
And you think I'M sad!
see this solely as an "example of chemical and biological serendipity," and are prepared to leave it at that. Perhaps this is because you lack the imagination to look any further?
Would you like me to give you a reading list of eminent scientists who question your restricted and simplistic view, and by the use intellect and imagination, strive for answers beyond "serendipity"?
“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.”
― Albert Einstein
And you think I'M sad!
Khandro, //“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.”
― Albert Einstein//
I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. However, I don’t believe it is intended to indicate that in the absence of evidence, our imaginations should lead us to formulate conclusions, which is what you appear to have done.
― Albert Einstein//
I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. However, I don’t believe it is intended to indicate that in the absence of evidence, our imaginations should lead us to formulate conclusions, which is what you appear to have done.
I have drawn no conclusions, I merely ask questions. Our irate friend above is the one with conclusions. My own post from elsewhere; The fact is that one cannot actually prove anything to be true, one consequence of karl Popper's work with 'falsifiability' is the understanding that you never really prove a theory to be 'true'. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.' But to begin with, one needs imagination to posses and then develop theories.
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.