The design argument

Originally posted by Soothfast
The definition of "random" is clear enough. So to do what you propose we need a firm, unambiguous definition for "designed" (unless it was already given somewhere around 109 pages ago).

The OP:

We'll assume that by "designer" we mean an intelligent being capable of forming matter in ways that the matter cannot form itself (even if under the influence of some mechanical laws), and "appearance of design" to be these forms. We can call these forms properties.

Looking again at this definition of designer, I think No1 isn't using it.

If it said something like this, he would be:

We'll assume that by "designer" we mean an intelligent being capable of forming matter in ways that the matter cannot (or is extremely unlikely to) form in a universe whose physical constants are set randomly (even if under the influence of some mechanical laws), and "appearance of design" to be these forms. We can call these forms properties.

Wikipedia says this about design: (noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints

"designer" would be the agent, and possibly the "intender" although the intender could be the designer's boss. 🙂

Originally posted by sonship

Clearly the Yahtzee parody parallels your line of thought.

I don't think the situation is with the Yahtzee parody is that "clearly" parallel to the fine tuning in the creation event and its latter developments.

In one toss you have five possibilities, I think, 1,2,3,4,5 or 6.
Am I right?

Fine tuning for the existence of li ...[text shortened]... ob." [/quote]

[The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, Broadway Books, pg. 26] (my bolding)

C'mon jaywill (I'm sure you've missed reading that). It's about "line of thought" - not whether or not Yahtzee and the universe have the same probabilities.

no1's line of thought is basically as follows:

There are only two possibilities:

A) [Something] was designed;

B) [Something] was a result of random forces.

Either one has to be more probable than the other or they can be equally probable.

Since B is highly improbable, A should be believed.

As such, B only need be "highly improbable" -which it is in the Yahtzee parody.

Read the first and second quote boxes in my prior post with the above in mind.

The Yahtzee parody is attacking no1's poorly conceived "line of thought". It's not about "lotteries".

Understand now?

BTW, Yahtzee is played using 5 dice.

Originally posted by JS357
The OP:

We'll assume that by "designer" we mean an intelligent being capable of forming matter in ways that the matter cannot form itself (even if under the influence of some mechanical laws), and "appearance of design" to be these forms. We can call these forms properties.

Looking again at this definition of designer, I think No1 isn't using it.

If ...[text shortened]... be the agent, and possibly the "intender" although the intender could be the designer's boss. 🙂

"designer" would be the agent, and possibly the "intender" although the intender could be the designer's boss.

Could be the designer or the designer's boss, or a higher level boss, or a higher level boss or a higher level boss ... etc.

That regress would not negate the evidence of intelligent design.

Originally posted by sonship

"designer" would be the agent, and possibly the "intender" although the intender could be the designer's boss.

Could be the designer or the designer's boss, or a higher level boss, or a higher level boss or a higher level boss ... etc.

That regress would not negate the evidence of intelligent design.

I was making a little joke.

Nothing will negate ID because it is unfalsifiable. No matter how the evidence looks to us; it could even be designed to fool is into thinking it isn't.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon jaywill (I'm sure you've missed reading that). It's about "line of thought" - not whether or not Yahtzee and the universe have the same probabilities.

no1's line of thought is basically as follows:
[quote]There are only two possibilities:

A) [Something] was designed;

B) [Something] was a result of random forces.

Either one has to be ...[text shortened]... thought". It's not about "lotteries".

Understand now?

BTW, Yahtzee is played using 5 dice.

Okay.

Now, where are we going?
The "design argument" negated?
There is no evidence of "fine tuning"?

Is that generally the direction where we're wandering to get around to, stopping by this Yahtzee parody issue ?

Originally posted by sonship
Okay.

Now, where are we going?
The "design argument" negated?
There is no evidence of "fine tuning"?

Is that generally the direction where we're wandering to get around to, stopping by this Yahtzee parody issue ?

Can you answer the following questions that I asked no1? It'll help me to decide on how to best frame my response to your questions.

Under the scenario detailed in the Yahtzee parody, your line of thought calls for the conclusion that TW'S ROLL WAS DESIGNED just as your line of thought calls for the conclusion that the UNIVERSE WAS DESIGNED.

Do you believe that it is correct to conclude that TW's roll was designed? If not, why not?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Can you answer the following questions that I asked no1? It'll help me to decide on how to best frame my response to your questions.

Under the scenario detailed in the Yahtzee parody, your line of thought calls for the conclusion that TW'S ROLL WAS DESIGNED just as your line of thought calls for the conclusion that the UNIVERSE WAS DESIGNED.

D ...[text shortened]... believe that it is correct to conclude that TW's roll was designed? If not, why not?

A roll of the dice is random. That is always the purpose of rolling the dice. A computer program can be designed to mimic the roll of the dice to get a random result, if that is what you are getting at.

Originally posted by sonship
Okay.

Now, where are we going?
The "design argument" negated?
There is no evidence of "fine tuning"?

Is that generally the direction where we're wandering to get around to, stopping by this Yahtzee parody issue ?

Quite the opposite, IMO.

If this universe is evidence that it was designed, any universe would be evidence that it was designed.

Chaotic universe? That was the design.

No life? That was the design.

Or it might be replied, based on our universe, it's really no life so far.

It only existed for one second? That was the design.

And so on. If you can imagine a universe, so can a designer.

These aren't intelligent? Who are we to say?

From Victor Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning":

Many of the quantities that are claimed to be fine-tuned just appear so because of the units used. For example, the mass of the electron is 0.911 x 10^-30 kilogram. The difference between neutron and proton masses is 2.30 x 10^-30 kilogram. If the electron were heavier by 1.39 x 10^-30 kilogram, neutrons would not decay and there would be no hydrogen in the universe. Expressed this way, it naively looks as if the mass of the electron is fine-tuned to one part in 10^30. But actually, as we will see in chapter 10, the electron's mass could be as low as we want or 150 percent higher and we would still have hydrogen.

Suffice it to say, the fine-tuning argument doesn't provide the kind of properties I asked for; appearance of design such that a designer is necessary. Nor is the argument from complexity very convincing.

I believe sonship linked to Hugh Ross earlier in this thread, who made the argument that very specific things need to happen in just the right order for a solar system like our own to appear and spawn life. But that argument also falls flat, considering just how many times the die has been thrown. With billions upon billions of stars we've only seen life in one solar system so far. That looks a lot like random chance events to me.

Now, I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if someone's posted another argument that I've missed. It seems this thread became mostly a discussion on the fine-tuning argument, and I'm mildly interested in that, to be honest (though I highly recommend reading Stenger's book above - it's a good and informative read for non-physicists like myself).

Originally posted by C Hess
From Victor Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning":

[quote]
Many of the quantities that are claimed to be fine-tuned just appear so because of the units used. For example, the mass of the electron is 0.911 x 10^-30 kilogram. The difference between neutron and proton masses is 2.30 x 10^-30 kilogram. If the electron were heavier by 1.39 x 10^-30 kilog ...[text shortened]... reading Stenger's book above - it's a good and informative read for non-physicists like myself).

I think you should rethink that die roll argument.

Think about chemical reactions, you mix A and B at just the right times,
with just the right amounts, under proper conditions you get C; however,
you alter the timing conditions you lose the ability to mix them correctly,
and if the amount of A and B is limited you could lose it all together! The
same is true of right amounts having to little or to much, or under improper
conditions.

People say keep mixing until you get it right by saying just roll the die
again, it will appear all 5 sooner or later. This only works if the all the
proper windows of opportunity are open at the all the right times, under
the right conditions, in the right amounts, in the right environment for
as long as is required with a host of other odds and ends coming into play.

The issues are that there never is a unlimited amount of A and B, and as
soon as they mix under anything but ideal everything you don't get to roll
the dice again with the tainted requirements. I think fine tuning does bring
to the table all the everything that is required, if it didn't do that you'd
be hard pressed to tell everyone how everything just happened without
direction for no good reason.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you should rethink that die roll argument.

Think about chemical reactions, you mix A and B at just the right times,
with just the right amounts, under proper conditions you get C; however,
you alter the timing conditions you lose the ability to mix them correctly,
and if the amount of A and B is limited you could lose it all together! The
sam ...[text shortened]... ard pressed to tell everyone how everything just happened without
direction for no good reason.

Yes the dice might be loaded by an intelligent designer. 😏

Originally posted by JS357

Quite the opposite, IMO.

If this universe is evidence that it was designed, any universe would be evidence that it was designed.

Any might. We know of ONE universe. The characteristics of that ONE universe we know outweighs the may hypothetical ones in our imagination that we have no evidence for.

Chaotic universe? That was the design.

Find a chaotic universe and your point would gain some weightier significance.

No life? That was the design.

Again, FIND one in which is no life and your point would gain some significance.

Or it might be replied, based on our universe, it's really no life so far.

It only existed for one second? That was the design.

The more significant evidence exists with the one universe of which we are certain, exists.

And so on. If you can imagine a universe, so can a designer.

These aren't intelligent? Who are we to say?

I think these are rather desperate measures merely to escape through rationalization the evidence of intelligent calibration of life permitting constants within the known universe.

MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder puts it well about the seeming "miracle" of our fine tuned for life universe.

" Perhaps we are here because good fortune smiled and produced by chance the multitude of events needed to coax life from the chaos of the big bang. It would be something like winning a lottery for which a million people - even a billion - had purchased tickets. A miracle? Not really - someone had to win and you were the lucky person.

A bit of scrutiny reveals the shortcomings of this analogy. You see, if you win a lottery this week and then again next week, and then again the third week, chances are that before you collect your third winnings, you will be on your way to jail for having rigged the results. The probability of winning three in a row, or three in a life-time, is so small as to be negligible. "But," you plead before the judge, "probability never says never. It was just a rare set of circumstances." It's true that probability never says never, but all physics, which means all of nature, is based on the understanding that the very very very unlikely never happens. Without this basic understanding, there is no foundation for any assumptions of physics or cosmology."

[The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, Broadway Books, pg. 26 ]

I think Schroeder is an orthodox Jew.

Originally posted by sonship

"designer" would be the agent, and possibly the "intender" although the intender could be the designer's boss.

Could be the designer or the designer's boss, or a higher level boss, or a higher level boss or a higher level boss ... etc.

That regress would not negate the evidence of intelligent design.

That is true but the case for god having a designer is at least as strong as the universe having one.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
That is true but the case for god having a designer is at least as strong as the universe having one.

That is a theological or philosophical muse. The end of the road for the Science is that the universe looks like the work of intelligent design.

That is the last stop on the Science train. That's what it looks like - ID.

Originally posted by sonship

Quite the opposite, IMO.

If this universe is evidence that it was designed, any universe would be evidence that it was designed.

Any might. We know of ONE universe. The characteristics of that ONE universe we know outweighs the may hypothetical ones in our imagination that we have no evidence for.

[quote]
Chaotic universe? That ...[text shortened]... God, Gerald L. Schroeder, Broadway Books, pg. 26 ]

I think Schroeder is an orthodox Jew.[/b]

I respect your thoughtful comments, but that does nothing to refute the main point that "If this universe is evidence that it was designed, any universe would be evidence that it was designed." Rather than refute it, you just don't want it to be part of the discussion. Oddly, it feels like an anthropic principle argument. "We know of ONE universe." That means the apparent improbability of our world is only hypothetical, and any argument for ID can be rejected on that basis alone.