Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument from Intelligent Design - Seriously?

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:39:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

It's a double standard, astronomical improbable events happen all the time, yet that alone doesn't justify well it was probably the result of intent.

The problem I find here is people just wanting to find what they want to find, argument from desire perhaps ?

They don't look at the other side, if our universe was not the result of intelligent design what would it look like ? well an intelligent life form will find it's self in a universe that is life permitting either way since if it was not they would not exist in that universe in the first place.

SO since a life will find it's self in a life permitting universe regardless of whether it was part of a plan or not, you will have to look else where in order to decided whether it was part of a plan or not.

We also live in a ebola and black hole permitting universe, but you never here that argument from ID ers.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:41:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.
We know of ONE universe that ONE universe contains intelligent life, the evidence shows us that the chance of intelligent life existing in a universe is 1:1.
Game over, oh look there's a nice puddle I'll build a hole to accommodate.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:44:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.

Unless you are engaging in self contradiction, the best explanation would be the same one that you apparently accept as the explanation for how you defied the odds of being born.

So which is it? Did an intelligent agent design and control the world in such a way to ensure you would eventually be born, or did you just happen to be the one who beat the incomprehensible odds?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:37:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:44:45 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.

Unless you are engaging in self contradiction, the best explanation would be the same one that you apparently accept as the explanation for how you defied the odds of being born.

You've taken a scenario where the outcome is known to have occurred by chance and equivocated it with a scenario where the outcome is not known to have occurred by chance. I'll elaborate further if that didn't clarify the issue. If we saw a message that said "sally loves Johnny" written in the sand there's a chance that it was written through wind and erosion. Just because something has "a chance" assigned to it doesn't mean it came about by chance. Obviously the best inference is that some intelligent entity, not chance, wrote the message.

So which is it? Did an intelligent agent design and control the world in such a way to ensure you would eventually be born, or did you just happen to be the one who beat the incomprehensible odds?

Good question, I have no idea. How does this relate to a false analogy in the OP though?
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 10:08:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:41:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.
We know of ONE universe that ONE universe contains intelligent life, the evidence shows us that the chance of intelligent life existing in a universe is 1:1.
Game over, oh look there's a nice puddle I'll build a hole to accommodate.

Hey bulproof, how do you answer the "fine tuned" cosmological constant argument? I understand the fine tuned earth is utter crap, since there is that many stars and galaxies that at least one life accomodating planet would eventually have to happen.

But I've always been a little stumped on the cosmilogical constant argument. Besides the obvious fact that it's a god of the gaps, what do you think of that argument?
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 11:56:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 10:08:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:41:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.
We know of ONE universe that ONE universe contains intelligent life, the evidence shows us that the chance of intelligent life existing in a universe is 1:1.
Game over, oh look there's a nice puddle I'll build a hole to accommodate.

Hey bulproof, how do you answer the "fine tuned" cosmological constant argument? I understand the fine tuned earth is utter crap, since there is that many stars and galaxies that at least one life accomodating planet would eventually have to happen.

But I've always been a little stumped on the cosmilogical constant argument. Besides the obvious fact that it's a god of the gaps, what do you think of that argument?
I have no idea or opinion AWSM, it's not something I've studied and to be honest dark energy and cosmological constant (synonymous) are just magic to me. I haven't tried very hard but I don't seem to be able to wrap my head around it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 12:51:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 11:56:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 10:08:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:41:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.
We know of ONE universe that ONE universe contains intelligent life, the evidence shows us that the chance of intelligent life existing in a universe is 1:1.
Game over, oh look there's a nice puddle I'll build a hole to accommodate.

Hey bulproof, how do you answer the "fine tuned" cosmological constant argument? I understand the fine tuned earth is utter crap, since there is that many stars and galaxies that at least one life accomodating planet would eventually have to happen.

But I've always been a little stumped on the cosmilogical constant argument. Besides the obvious fact that it's a god of the gaps, what do you think of that argument?
I have no idea or opinion AWSM, it's not something I've studied and to be honest dark energy and cosmological constant (synonymous) are just magic to me. I haven't tried very hard but I don't seem to be able to wrap my head around it.

That's alright. Thanks anyway!
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 12:55:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 12:51:37 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:56:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 10:08:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:41:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.
We know of ONE universe that ONE universe contains intelligent life, the evidence shows us that the chance of intelligent life existing in a universe is 1:1.
Game over, oh look there's a nice puddle I'll build a hole to accommodate.

Hey bulproof, how do you answer the "fine tuned" cosmological constant argument? I understand the fine tuned earth is utter crap, since there is that many stars and galaxies that at least one life accomodating planet would eventually have to happen.

But I've always been a little stumped on the cosmilogical constant argument. Besides the obvious fact that it's a god of the gaps, what do you think of that argument?
I have no idea or opinion AWSM, it's not something I've studied and to be honest dark energy and cosmological constant (synonymous) are just magic to me. I haven't tried very hard but I don't seem to be able to wrap my head around it.

That's alright. Thanks anyway!
Are we talking about the same thing AWSM, what do you mean by cosmological constant?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 1:06:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 10:08:19 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:

Hey bulproof, how do you answer the "fine tuned" cosmological constant argument? I understand the fine tuned earth is utter crap, since there is that many stars and galaxies that at least one life accomodating planet would eventually have to happen.

But I've always been a little stumped on the cosmilogical constant argument. Besides the obvious fact that it's a god of the gaps, what do you think of that argument?

What cosmological constant?

It's really very simple. In what kind of universe could an intelligent being ask the question about how did this universe produce me? Only in a universe in which intelligent life could evolve. Yet ID'ers seem to be surprised that they find themselves in such a universe and believe that it's somehow improbable and someone must have "fine-tuned" it. I don't understand it.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 1:56:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Incorrect, don't get me wrong I understand what you're saying but only from an atheistic understanding. That sperm only makes up the physical composition of the human, that is not actually the person or the "consciousness" part of man/you, its just the flesh body.
In theism the material shell is irrelevant, it's just a tool for our spirit (consciousness) to experience the world around us. So basically what ever material make up we get is what we get, once conception has occurred (at some point) the spirit consciousness enters that womb, that product of material application (sperm) has now unified with the spiritual (consciousness) application. The soul/conscious you is then unified with the nervous system as it develops and lives, the consciousness is literally trapped inside the physical body.


Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).


So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

No not really, because like I said, the "you" (consciousness), the inner part of yourself is not dependent on anything other than conception. Once the sperm has penetrated it's only job is to make up the material DNA of that person's soul.


Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

No of course not. We multiplied from a single source..."be fruitful and multiply", basically God said "see ya later" lol.


If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

Because the inner qualities of the conscious part of you contains what the physical part of you cannot, so it does not control anything other than the physical make-up of the consciousness. If you had no spirit or consciousness you would be a vegetable, the inner part of you, the deeper part of yourself the material has no control over is the part of you that infused with the material components.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,586
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 2:06:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 1:56:14 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Incorrect, don't get me wrong I understand what you're saying but only from an atheistic understanding. That sperm only makes up the physical composition of the human, that is not actually the person or the "consciousness" part of man/you, its just the flesh body.
In theism the material shell is irrelevant, it's just a tool for our spirit (consciousness) to experience the world around us.

Incorrect, the consciousness is part of the brain, it is a physical thing, spirit is a meaningless word that has never been defined.

So basically what ever material make up we get is what we get, once conception has occurred (at some point) the spirit consciousness enters that womb, that product of material application (sperm) has now unified with the spiritual (consciousness) application. The soul/conscious you is then unified with the nervous system as it develops and lives, the consciousness is literally trapped inside the physical body.

LOL, There you go again, making up nonsense as you go along.


Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).


So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

No not really, because like I said, the "you" (consciousness), the inner part of yourself is not dependent on anything other than conception. Once the sperm has penetrated it's only job is to make up the material DNA of that person's soul.

And, of course, you have absolutely no evidence for that ridiculous claim.


Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

No of course not. We multiplied from a single source..."be fruitful and multiply", basically God said "see ya later" lol.

Did he. where did God say that, exactly? Did he tell you that in a vision (hallucination)


If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

Because the inner qualities of the conscious part of you contains what the physical part of you cannot, so it does not control anything other than the physical make-up of the consciousness. If you had no spirit or consciousness you would be a vegetable, the inner part of you, the deeper part of yourself the material has no control over is the part of you that infused with the material components.

Sorry, but you should try learning something about biology and how babies grow into adults and how their brains develop.

This is definitely been some of you most entertaining and silliest of posts.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:35:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:37:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:44:45 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.

Unless you are engaging in self contradiction, the best explanation would be the same one that you apparently accept as the explanation for how you defied the odds of being born.

You've taken a scenario where the outcome is known to have occurred by chance and equivocated it with a scenario where the outcome is not known to have occurred by chance.

Things happen. There are odds for/against every scenario happening. ID says that the odds of a life permitting universe being so low is how we rationally determine that it did not occur by chance, yet when applying the exact same reasoning towards your birth, you suddenly disregard it.

It is quite a silly excuse to say that one outcome is known to occur by chance while the other is not. The fundamental problem with ID is that it asserts a rational determination regarding pure chance without addressing the issue of how we recognize pure chance in the first place.

If we saw a message that said "sally loves Johnny" written in the sand there's a chance that it was written through wind and erosion. Just because something has "a chance" assigned to it doesn't mean it came about by chance. Obviously the best inference is that some intelligent entity, not chance, wrote the message.

We recognize that it is the result of an intelligent agent because intelligent agents have been observed a gazillion times writing messages in the sand, wind and erosion has never been observed accomplishing the same.

How many times has this point been made to you already?

So which is it? Did an intelligent agent design and control the world in such a way to ensure you would eventually be born, or did you just happen to be the one who beat the incomprehensible odds?

Good question, I have no idea. How does this relate to a false analogy in the OP though?

You believe, based on probability, that the universe could not have came about by chance where you would be here now.

Yet you also believe, in-spite of the same probabilistic obstacle, that you are here now as a result of chance.

That's called a contradiction.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 3:47:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 1:56:14 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Incorrect, don't get me wrong I understand what you're saying but only from an atheistic understanding. That sperm only makes up the physical composition of the human, that is not actually the person or the "consciousness" part of man/you, its just the flesh body.
In theism the material shell is irrelevant, it's just a tool for our spirit (consciousness) to experience the world around us. So basically what ever material make up we get is what we get, once conception has occurred (at some point) the spirit consciousness enters that womb, that product of material application (sperm) has now unified with the spiritual (consciousness) application. The soul/conscious you is then unified with the nervous system as it develops and lives, the consciousness is literally trapped inside the physical body.

If your parents never had sex, would you be here now? Yes, No, or was this never a possible scenario?
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:27:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
- Double_R 1
So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.
Your analogy is poor because you using something unspecific (a human with the ability to wonder about its origins) as an analogy for something specific (an ecosystem with the ability to wonder about its origins).

If I throw 1000 dice and get some random permutation adding up to 341, then the probability of that permutation is 6^(-1000). Surely that can't have occurred by chance !? Of course it can, because the result is not specific.

If I throw 1000 dice and throw all 6s, then surely that must have been by chance, since all other permutations are just as unlikely ? Of course not, because the result is specific (e.g. it has minimum entropy)

Starting from the assumption that humanity existed 6000 years ago, the probability that a human would 6000 years ponder about their origins is close to 1. However, assuming that random processes generated a universe, the probability that an ecosystem would arise that ponders about its origins is, according to creationist calculations, extremely low. If the initial conditions only occurred once, the explanation is less powerful than alternative explanations that provide a higher probability for the result.

The puddle analogy for the same reason. Given the initial conditions, the probability that the water takes the shape of the hole is one.

- Benshapiro to OP
The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.
Your existence was not defined as having occurred by chance. Double_R just gave an argument that it would be extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance, so how do you know it did anyway ?

- illegalcombatant 3
They don't look at the other side, if our universe was not the result of intelligent design what would it look like ? well an intelligent life form will find it's self in a universe that is life permitting either way since if it was not they would not exist in that universe in the first place.
You are misrepresenting the creationist position. You pretend they are asking : Given that life exists, why does it happen to be in a universe that can support it ?
What they are really asking is : Why does life exist ?

The puddle analogy is bad for the same reason. Creationists aren't asking : Given that there is water in a hole, why does the water take shape of the hole ? No, they are asking : Why is there water ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:30:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 3:35:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:37:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:44:45 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.

Unless you are engaging in self contradiction, the best explanation would be the same one that you apparently accept as the explanation for how you defied the odds of being born.

You've taken a scenario where the outcome is known to have occurred by chance and equivocated it with a scenario where the outcome is not known to have occurred by chance.

Things happen. There are odds for/against every scenario happening. ID says that the odds of a life permitting universe being so low is how we rationally determine that it did not occur by chance, yet when applying the exact same reasoning towards your birth, you suddenly disregard it.

I already showed why the two scenarios are disanalogous. I didn't "suddenly disregard it." There are odds for/against occurrences that happen by intelligent agency too.

It is quite a silly excuse to say that one outcome is known to occur by chance while the other is not. The fundamental problem with ID is that it asserts a rational determination regarding pure chance without addressing the issue of how we recognize pure chance in the first place.

Apparently it's "silly" but I haven't heard any line of reasoning that shows why it's incorrect. We recognize that something occurs by pure chance when we've identified the selective/causal mechanism. We don't know what the selective/causal mechanism was that brought the universe into being. Hence our reliance on inference.

If we saw a message that said "sally loves Johnny" written in the sand there's a chance that it was written through wind and erosion. Just because something has "a chance" assigned to it doesn't mean it came about by chance. Obviously the best inference is that some intelligent entity, not chance, wrote the message.

We recognize that it is the result of an intelligent agent because intelligent agents have been observed a gazillion times writing messages in the sand, wind and erosion has never been observed accomplishing the same.

Wind and erosion could make patterns that spell out messages. Patterns created by wind and erosion happen in the sand all the time. The question to ask is what's the better inference: chance or intelligent agency?

How many times has this point been made to you already?

So which is it? Did an intelligent agent design and control the world in such a way to ensure you would eventually be born, or did you just happen to be the one who beat the incomprehensible odds?

Good question, I have no idea. How does this relate to a false analogy in the OP though?

You believe, based on probability, that the universe could not have came about by chance where you would be here now.

I believe that the best inference is that intelligent agency rather than chance brought the universe into being.

Yet you also believe, in-spite of the same probabilistic obstacle, that you are here now as a result of chance.

That's called a contradiction.

That's a blatant misrepresentation. I said I didn't know whether I'm here by chance or by God's will.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:12:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:30:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 3:35:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:37:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:44:45 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.

Unless you are engaging in self contradiction, the best explanation would be the same one that you apparently accept as the explanation for how you defied the odds of being born.

You've taken a scenario where the outcome is known to have occurred by chance and equivocated it with a scenario where the outcome is not known to have occurred by chance.

Things happen. There are odds for/against every scenario happening. ID says that the odds of a life permitting universe being so low is how we rationally determine that it did not occur by chance, yet when applying the exact same reasoning towards your birth, you suddenly disregard it.

I already showed why the two scenarios are disanalogous. I didn't "suddenly disregard it." There are odds for/against occurrences that happen by intelligent agency too.

It is quite a silly excuse to say that one outcome is known to occur by chance while the other is not. The fundamental problem with ID is that it asserts a rational determination regarding pure chance without addressing the issue of how we recognize pure chance in the first place.

Apparently it's "silly" but I haven't heard any line of reasoning that shows why it's incorrect. We recognize that something occurs by pure chance when we've identified the selective/causal mechanism. We don't know what the selective/causal mechanism was that brought the universe into being. Hence our reliance on inference.

First of all, if you have not identified a demonstrable casual mechanism then inference has no basis.

Second, the ID argument already invokes the odds, so the causal mechanism is irrelevant.

Third, the silliness of your argument comes from the fact that you are contradicting yourself by accepting that your birth occurred by chance despite the odds against it, while accepting that the universe did not occur by chance because of the odds against it.

Whether the assertion made by the argument is "incorrect" is a whole different question.

If we saw a message that said "sally loves Johnny" written in the sand there's a chance that it was written through wind and erosion. Just because something has "a chance" assigned to it doesn't mean it came about by chance. Obviously the best inference is that some intelligent entity, not chance, wrote the message.

We recognize that it is the result of an intelligent agent because intelligent agents have been observed a gazillion times writing messages in the sand, wind and erosion has never been observed accomplishing the same.

Wind and erosion could make patterns that spell out messages. Patterns created by wind and erosion happen in the sand all the time. The question to ask is what's the better inference: chance or intelligent agency?

Correct. So for the next step in how we go about determining what's the better inference... Read the comment you just responded to.

You believe, based on probability, that the universe could not have came about by chance where you would be here now.

I believe that the best inference is that intelligent agency rather than chance brought the universe into being.

Same thing I just said.

Yet you also believe, in-spite of the same probabilistic obstacle, that you are here now as a result of chance.

That's called a contradiction.

That's a blatant misrepresentation. I said I didn't know whether I'm here by chance or by God's will.

But can't you just infer whether God played a role in the astronomical odds of your birth being defied?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:22:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:27:23 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
- Double_R 1
So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Your analogy is poor because you using something unspecific (a human with the ability to wonder about its origins) as an analogy for something specific (an ecosystem with the ability to wonder about its origins).

If I throw 1000 dice and get some random permutation adding up to 341, then the probability of that permutation is 6^(-1000). Surely that can't have occurred by chance !? Of course it can, because the result is not specific.

If I throw 1000 dice and throw all 6s, then surely that must have been by chance, since all other permutations are just as unlikely ? Of course not, because the result is specific (e.g. it has minimum entropy)

Starting from the assumption that humanity existed 6000 years ago, the probability that a human would 6000 years ponder about their origins is close to 1. However, assuming that random processes generated a universe, the probability that an ecosystem would arise that ponders about its origins is, according to creationist calculations, extremely low. If the initial conditions only occurred once, the explanation is less powerful than alternative explanations that provide a higher probability for the result.

You haven't demonstrated any difference between the two.

For the the odds of a life permitting universe to be 1 in 1000, there has to be 999 alternative universes that could have arisen. Therefore, the odds of a universe emerging that defied a 1 in 1000 odds is 1 in 1.

For the odds of a particular person's birth to be 1 in 1000, there has to be 999 alternative people that could have born. Therefore, the odds of a person being born that defied a 1 in 1000 odds is 1 in 1.

It's the exact same thing. You're just looking at each of them from different angles, which is the point of why the ID argument fails.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:45:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?
ID Creationists don't argue that man roamed the earth for 6,000 years. You're referring to YEC, which is primarily a biblical argument.

To clarify further, creationism/creationist is the original term for ID before it was scandalized as being a front for biblical creationism.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:53:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:24:31 AM, Double_R wrote:
Why are you guys still using this argument?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around but in the most recent thread where I've seen this, the number representing the odds of a life permitting universe was 1 in 10^120. The idea being that a life permitting universe is so unlikely that we would be rational to instantly dismiss the odds of it happening by chance and replace that assertion with that of a purposeful intelligent designer.

Let's see if this kind of thinking holds up.

The average male ejaculation contains 100,000 sperm (I've read in some places that it's a lot more then that, but I'm too lazy to nail it down so let's just stick with it). Each sperm containing unique qualities that if conceived would have resulted in a different person.

Now let's assume that creationists are right, and humans have only roamed the earth for 6,000 years. This leaves us with approximately 240 generations of ancestors before us (6,000 / 25).

So with some very simple math, completely disregarding the mind boggling number of other factors involved, the odds of each of our births was 100,000^240. A number that surpasses 10^120 at a scale beyond human comprehension.

Given the odds that you defied in order to be born, is it your belief that every single action taken by every single ancestor that preceded you was controlled by the same intelligent agent that created the universe?

If yes, please reconcile this with free will and/or explain whether this agent is controlling you now.

And what about the odds of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren? What makes their births possible given the odds that they will have to defy in order to be born?

You don't understand statistics.

Harry.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 7:12:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:45:39 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
ID Creationists don't argue that man roamed the earth for 6,000 years. You're referring to YEC, which is primarily a biblical argument.

To clarify further, creationism/creationist is the original term for ID before it was scandalized as being a front for biblical creationism.

I know all of that. I was making sure my odds were as generous as possible so that ID supporters do not grasp at irrelevant points.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 7:13:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:53:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
You don't understand statistics.

Harry.

Wow Harry. What an intelligent rebuttal. I guess I'll ask DDO moderators to remove this thread now.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 7:19:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:12:06 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:30:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 3:35:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:37:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:44:45 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:29:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The fallacy in this reasoning is that we know it's already defined as an event that occurs by chance. We INFER to what the best explanation is for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The 1 in 10^120 is the cosmological constant.

Unless you are engaging in self contradiction, the best explanation would be the same one that you apparently accept as the explanation for how you defied the odds of being born.

You've taken a scenario where the outcome is known to have occurred by chance and equivocated it with a scenario where the outcome is not known to have occurred by chance.

Things happen. There are odds for/against every scenario happening. ID says that the odds of a life permitting universe being so low is how we rationally determine that it did not occur by chance, yet when applying the exact same reasoning towards your birth, you suddenly disregard it.

I already showed why the two scenarios are disanalogous. I didn't "suddenly disregard it." There are odds for/against occurrences that happen by intelligent agency too.

It is quite a silly excuse to say that one outcome is known to occur by chance while the other is not. The fundamental problem with ID is that it asserts a rational determination regarding pure chance without addressing the issue of how we recognize pure chance in the first place.

Apparently it's "silly" but I haven't heard any line of reasoning that shows why it's incorrect. We recognize that something occurs by pure chance when we've identified the selective/causal mechanism. We don't know what the selective/causal mechanism was that brought the universe into being. Hence our reliance on inference.

First of all, if you have not identified a demonstrable casual mechanism then inference has no basis.

Then by that same token, you have no basis for inferring that it was a product of chance.

We actually can make an inference based on the notion that the only causal/selective mechanisms available are (1) chance, (2) physical necessity, or (3) intelligent agency.

Second, the ID argument already invokes the odds, so the causal mechanism is irrelevant.

I think you're misunderstanding the fine-tuning argument. They're not giving us the odds of the universe coming into being. They're giving us the maximum window of variation that would allow for a life-permitting window.

Third, the silliness of your argument comes from the fact that you are contradicting yourself by accepting that your birth occurred by chance despite the odds against it, while accepting that the universe did not occur by chance because of the odds against it.

Yet again, the two scenarios are disanalogous because we haven't identified the causal/selective mechanism that brought the universe into being.

Whether the assertion made by the argument is "incorrect" is a whole different question.

If we saw a message that said "sally loves Johnny" written in the sand there's a chance that it was written through wind and erosion. Just because something has "a chance" assigned to it doesn't mean it came about by chance. Obviously the best inference is that some intelligent entity, not chance, wrote the message.

We recognize that it is the result of an intelligent agent because intelligent agents have been observed a gazillion times writing messages in the sand, wind and erosion has never been observed accomplishing the same.

Wind and erosion could make patterns that spell out messages. Patterns created by wind and erosion happen in the sand all the time. The question to ask is what's the better inference: chance or intelligent agency?

Correct. So for the next step in how we go about determining what's the better inference... Read the comment you just responded to.

It doesn't even need to be written in a language that we understand. We understand that specified and complex sequences are the product of intelligent agency.

You believe, based on probability, that the universe could not have came about by chance where you would be here now.

I believe that the best inference is that intelligent agency rather than chance brought the universe into being.

Same thing I just said.

Not really. I don't accept that the universe arising by chance , as a measure of probability, is an impossibility.

Yet you also believe, in-spite of the same probabilistic obstacle, that you are here now as a result of chance.

That's called a contradiction.

That's a blatant misrepresentation. I said I didn't know whether I'm here by chance or by God's will.

But can't you just infer whether God played a role in the astronomical odds of your birth being defied?

The causal/selective mechanism by which any particular sperm meets the egg appears to be a chance event. Whether or not I, referring to my conscousness, was brought into being by God's will or not is unknown.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:21:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:19:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:12:06 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:30:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Apparently it's "silly" but I haven't heard any line of reasoning that shows why it's incorrect. We recognize that something occurs by pure chance when we've identified the selective/causal mechanism. We don't know what the selective/causal mechanism was that brought the universe into being. Hence our reliance on inference.

First of all, if you have not identified a demonstrable casual mechanism then inference has no basis.

Then by that same token, you have no basis for inferring that it was a product of chance.

I'm not the one making an inference. That's what ID does.

BTW, to be clear, "chance" in this context refers to a causal mechanism absent intent.

We actually can make an inference based on the notion that the only causal/selective mechanisms available are (1) chance, (2) physical necessity, or (3) intelligent agency.

That's a defined list of options, not a basis for inference.

Second, the list makes no sense. (1) refers to a casual mechanism absent intent, (2) refers to a framework by which evaluating chance has no meaning, and (3) refers to a mechanism with a very specific property (intelligence). They are all different categories.

Second, the ID argument already invokes the odds, so the causal mechanism is irrelevant.

I think you're misunderstanding the fine-tuning argument. They're not giving us the odds of the universe coming into being. They're giving us the maximum window of variation that would allow for a life-permitting window.

Without a casual mechanism there is no universe at all. The fact that we're talking about the variations is exactly why the casual mechanism is irrelevant. You can't talk about number of possible variations of a universe that never came into being in the first place, hence my previous statement.

Third, the silliness of your argument comes from the fact that you are contradicting yourself by accepting that your birth occurred by chance despite the odds against it, while accepting that the universe did not occur by chance because of the odds against it.

Yet again, the two scenarios are disanalogous because we haven't identified the causal/selective mechanism that brought the universe into being.

What you are saying is that we haven't identified whether the universe came into existence by chance or by selection. First of all, chance applies to selection as well, so that is not a dichotomy. The choices are "with intent" and "without intent". That's it.

With that said, there is nothing disanalogous about the two examples. In one case we understand the casual mechanism (conception as a product of sex), in the other case we don't understand the mechanism. That is irrelevant. The argument from ID asserts that the present state was reached with intent because of the odds against it. A rationale that fits exactly to the concept of your birth. They are not disanalogous you just accept the rationale in one case and not the other.

We recognize that it is the result of an intelligent agent because intelligent agents have been observed a gazillion times writing messages in the sand, wind and erosion has never been observed accomplishing the same.

Wind and erosion could make patterns that spell out messages. Patterns created by wind and erosion happen in the sand all the time. The question to ask is what's the better inference: chance or intelligent agency?

Correct. So for the next step in how we go about determining what's the better inference... Read the comment you just responded to.

It doesn't even need to be written in a language that we understand. We understand that specified and complex sequences are the product of intelligent agency.

Oh lord, here we go again with specified complexity. Maybe in another thread.

That's a blatant misrepresentation. I said I didn't know whether I'm here by chance or by God's will.

But can't you just infer whether God played a role in the astronomical odds of your birth being defied?

The causal/selective mechanism by which any particular sperm meets the egg appears to be a chance event. Whether or not I, referring to my conscousness, was brought into being by God's will or not is unknown.

Are you suggesting that we cannot infer whether there was intent behind your eventual joining of the human race? Do we not know the odds of such an occurrence? Are the odds no longer a valid basis for inference?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:05:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:12:19 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:45:39 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
ID Creationists don't argue that man roamed the earth for 6,000 years. You're referring to YEC, which is primarily a biblical argument.

To clarify further, creationism/creationist is the original term for ID before it was scandalized as being a front for biblical creationism.

I know all of that. I was making sure my odds were as generous as possible so that ID supporters do not grasp at irrelevant points.

Yawwwn...

The probability of SOME person being born is not the same as the probability of ANY person being born.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:08:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 4:05:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:12:19 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:45:39 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
ID Creationists don't argue that man roamed the earth for 6,000 years. You're referring to YEC, which is primarily a biblical argument.

To clarify further, creationism/creationist is the original term for ID before it was scandalized as being a front for biblical creationism.

I know all of that. I was making sure my odds were as generous as possible so that ID supporters do not grasp at irrelevant points.

Yawwwn...

The probability of SOME person being born is not the same as the probability of ANY person being born.

And...

*waiting to be enlightened*
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:00:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 4:08:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2016 4:05:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:12:19 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:45:39 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
ID Creationists don't argue that man roamed the earth for 6,000 years. You're referring to YEC, which is primarily a biblical argument.

To clarify further, creationism/creationist is the original term for ID before it was scandalized as being a front for biblical creationism.

I know all of that. I was making sure my odds were as generous as possible so that ID supporters do not grasp at irrelevant points.

Yawwwn...

The probability of SOME person being born is not the same as the probability of ANY person being born.

And...

*waiting to be enlightened*

The probability of a person being born - even in the next 60 seconds - is very close to 1. The probability of a person with specific characteristics - (will be an adult of 5'11", female, green eyes, be a skilled artist, be named Mary Beth, have size 8 feet, have a left little finger 3 mm longer than her right, will enjoy belgian beer, like european cinema...) all of the things that make an individual and individual - is close to 0.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:38:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:00:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/28/2016 4:08:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2016 4:05:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:12:19 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:45:39 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
ID Creationists don't argue that man roamed the earth for 6,000 years. You're referring to YEC, which is primarily a biblical argument.

To clarify further, creationism/creationist is the original term for ID before it was scandalized as being a front for biblical creationism.

I know all of that. I was making sure my odds were as generous as possible so that ID supporters do not grasp at irrelevant points.

Yawwwn...

The probability of SOME person being born is not the same as the probability of ANY person being born.

And...

*waiting to be enlightened*

The probability of a person being born - even in the next 60 seconds - is very close to 1. The probability of a person with specific characteristics - (will be an adult of 5'11", female, green eyes, be a skilled artist, be named Mary Beth, have size 8 feet, have a left little finger 3 mm longer than her right, will enjoy belgian beer, like european cinema...) all of the things that make an individual and individual - is close to 0.

Still wondering how this impacts anything I have said.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:06:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
- Amoranemix 16
Your existence was not defined as having occurred by chance. Double_R just gave an argument that it would be extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance, so how do you know it did anyway ?
- Benshapiro
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

- Double_R 19
You haven't demonstrated any difference between the two.
I didn't try to demonstrate a difference. However, I did point out a difference and explained why that difference matters. If you find error in my reasoning, please explain it.

- Double_R 19
For the the odds of a life permitting universe to be 1 in 1000, there has to be 999 alternative universes that could have arisen. Therefore, the odds of a universe emerging that defied a 1 in 1000 odds is 1 in 1.

For the odds of a particular person's birth to be 1 in 1000, there has to be 999 alternative people that could have born. Therefore, the odds of a person being born that defied a 1 in 1000 odds is 1 in 1.

It's the exact same thing. You're just looking at each of them from different angles, which is the point of why the ID argument fails.
It is not exactly the same thing. As I argued, a particular human is a bad analogy for an intelligent life permitting universe.

You seem to be relying on a refutation by analogy argument as follows.

The IDers argue :
[ID reasoning]
C1. Therefore, an intelligent designer designed the universe.

You argue :
[reasoning similar to ID reasoning]
C2. Therefore, an intelligent designer designed Benshapiro.

Since C2 is presumed to be absurd, the reasoning similar to ID reasoning is wrong. Hence, by analogy, the ID reasoning must be wrong as well. However, that doesn't follow. It is possible for the analogy to be wrong while the original is accurate.

The burden of proof is on you to show that 'ID reasoning is wrong' follows from 'reasoning similar to ID reasoning is wrong'. I have pointed out what seem to be relevant differences between the two arguments, assuming that you rely on these aspects to be identical.

- Double_R 18
Third, the silliness of your argument comes from the fact that you are contradicting yourself by accepting that your birth occurred by chance despite the odds against it, while accepting that the universe did not occur by chance because of the odds against it.
- Benshapiro 24
Yet again, the two scenarios are disanalogous because we haven't identified the causal/selective mechanism that brought the universe into being.
The two scenarios are disanalogous, but not for that reason, since we haven't identified the causal/selective mechanism that brought you into being either.

- Double_R
Correct. So for the next step in how we go about determining what's the better inference... Read the comment you just responded to.
- Benshapiro 24
It doesn't even need to be written in a language that we understand. We understand that specified and complex sequences are the product of intelligent agency.
Who is the 'we' that knows that ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.