I respectfully disagree. It is fairly easy to calculate reasonable ranges for most of the fine tuning parameters that the Intelligent Design movement has discovered. Here are some examples with corresponding probabilities: galaxy type .1 star location .2 number of stars in system .2 star birth date .2 star age .4 star mass .001 star luminosity relative to speciation .0001 star color .4 supernovae rates and locations .01 white dwarf binary types, rates and locations .01 planetary distance from star .001 axis tilt .3 rotation period .1 rate of change in rotation period .05 Okay, I'm getting tired of typing them all out. There are many more. (And notice that I have not even included the constants of physics and cosmology that I brought up earlier.) There are only 10 to the 22nd planets in the universe and the probability of all these life-dealing parameters added up (even taking into account dependencies) GREATLY exceeds the number of planets. One can with a huge confidence of safety say that the earth is the only planet in our universe capable of life. So you can draw conclusions from the math of it all. Again, though, I concede that the math does not prove directly that there was a creator. However, it does show that there is not going to be life on other planets and so I think math does have its place at other times. By the way, I do believe they'll eventually find (extemely irradiated) life on Mars, but it will come from earth originating projectiles of which a few % will end up on Mars.
axe and stu, It took me awhile to understand what you were saying, but I think I get the core of it. I think we both show our bias based on our view of evolution. For example, you think that life is self-originating and self-organizing and self-transforming and so, given the current universe, you see nothing remarkable in the fact that life sprung up on our little planet. I, on the other hand, see things the opposite and do not see life springing up on its own so I would not even conceive of the argument that you brought up. Here's my assessment of our seeming stalemate. We have all walked into a room and found a watch (yes, I'm going to the watchmaker example). I observe that it has many intricate moving parts none of which can be modified in even the slightest degree if the watch is going to continue running. I was astonished and want to meet the watchmaker. You on the other hand wonder if the watch could not have arrived there by some other more random, "inanimate" process. I cannot of course prove to you that the watch was designed and fashioned by a watchmaker because I did not video tape the event. And so we are at a stalemate. But that is not too surprising to me because, after all, there is always an element of faith to religious belief.
Gekko, you need to check into the nearest Idiots Anonymous asap. Get up there and finally be honest with yourself and declare, "my name is Gordon Gekko and I am an idiot." Do you even understand that science is ILL EQUIPPED (to say the least) to be the basis for deciding ALL beliefs? Do you even understand that you are admitting to a GLARING epistemological bias, that renders virtually anything your entire opinion on the topic null and void? And you're also wrong on the charge that my mind was made up for me by birth -- unlike you. ("My dad saved me" = my dad indoctrinated me into atheism). Go do a search on my posts and see some of the things I've said about religion in my past as an atheist on this site. I've chosen God for a variety of reasons -- reasons I'm without doubt you haven't the slightest inclination to consider -- not because it was shoved down my throat.
Stu, I apologize for lumping you together with axeman and Gekko, but I need a third muskateer, and you were it. I could explain why I don't believe religion is the open and shut case most atheists make it out to be and why I certainly do not consider atheism the intellectual slam dunk that atheists like to pretend it is. My question is, would you be willing to sit there discussing it? I can't "prove" to you I'm right, in fact in everything I've written about God here I've never tried to "prove" God at all. So there's nothing to fear. So if you're truly interested, why not set aside the compulsion to cut every line of inquiry off at the pass and talk the issues through to see where they lead. I could certainly take the time do that, but it's just so off-putting when you have to wade through axeman-like "red herring" restrictions on the scope of the discussion; they're clear signs that someone couldn't care less about understanding your point of view but in "winning" some debate they think is taking place.
Axeman, I don't deny that I have an emotional attachement to the issue. Now, since you haven't denied my charge that you do too, we'll assume that you recognize and admit this, shall we? If so, know that your sincerity is appreciated.
What? Don't tell me you don't even understand that evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive theories?
no, my parents just did not suggest ANY PARTICULAR BELIEFS to me. they did not suggest atheism or any religion.
Shoeshineboy, I am assuming you are showing this as math which is supposed to prove - for intelligent design groups - that the odds are against a universe and life being able to cause itself. Trying to use math (these groups would try to misuse science also) is false and misleading. However, whether showing math for or against the proposition, either way the theist loses the proposition that math is supposed to prove. If you say the there IS math in support for either a universe or life on earth, then you are stating mathematics suggests a good chance for life on earth thereby negating the need for God. You don't need God to understand the logic and reason as to why e=mc² explains the things it does. One can't logically or arbitrarily tack on to that say for instance, 'God gives the intelligence to understand e=mc²' as that proposition is not in the mathematical odds for/against the equation used. If you say the mathematics are against the chances, then it is obviously flawed, as there clearly IS a universe and life on earth. Something is missing from the math, OR math is not the tool to find out the answer. Now what...?? therefore there is intelligent design?? So shall we pack up and put it all down to a mythical unknown God. Is that what has produced better understanding of things throughout the centuries? Did settling for a supernatural state of affairs disprove the idea that lightning is caused by the mythical God Zeus? There is an explanation for lightning supported by the development and better understanding of math, physics and science. Math doesn't remove Zeus though, that isn't what math is for. So the chances for Zeus is what .000 ? What are the chances for lightning using similar intelligent design data? Is it only .01 ? Therefore Zeus exists or a better understanding of the cause of lightning exists?? Isolating specific events, does not prove that the math proves God. Ask 100 people to bring along a pack of cards and ask each one to draw one card from their pack. The odds against that exact combination coming up are enormous, yet it did. The mathematical equation does not contain data to predict the combination! But if that were the combination needed for a universe and life then voila! Such mathematical odds tell nothing as to whether or not it needs intelligent design to draw that combination. It appears it does not, as a machine could do it. It is NOT however, mathematical proof that intelligent design is needed to make the cards, which is what the intelligent design gurus would like to have it as! If each 'card' was an uncaused particle pair cause, and that only reacts in a certain way , which in turn sets off an unimaginably massive event, which in turn caused the first nuclei, which caused.. etc etc.... Rather than making assumptions, it seems searching out the correct "math" is always more beneficial to understanding. And no, God is not math . Math is math!
alfonso, No probs, but can I please be D'Artagnan. I think he was the youngest and had the biggest weapon. I hear what you say. I do however think there are a couple of things you may be overlooking. If most atheists consider atheism is the intellectual slam dunk of debate (I contest that is not the case and that is not what a-theism is about), inevitably the debate will also contain many 'statements of absolute' by theists. I would think there would be a lot less barracking as such, if those of a religious bent would be as clear as you have been in your post above , that they are not asserting God exists but that God may exist. First let me say that, of the examples you cite, surely you must agree to a point at least that axeman really does give some extremely eloquent and well laid out argument. Gordon Gekko raises very good points, even if rather energetically - you can't condemn someone for that. Yes there is the LMAO!!! but I have to laugh my arse off many times at GG or FPC or vinny nolan's etc outrageously irreverent comments. I used to like reading Darkhorse's contributions very much too, as I felt he had a pleasant way of rambling but very disapointed when he wrecked himself as did Optional777 in the God debates. You also have your Thunderbolts too, so you see, it works both ways. Bring back RS7 is what I say. It is more interesting for me to read a debate which concentrates on both sides of an issue, but as axeman has pointed out in this thread, already there are theists jumping in turning attention away from the main questions being addressed. But yes I agree, it is distracting to have outright agression or evasion from either viewpoint. Yes let's talk the issues through and see where they go, but let's define the issue and stick to the issue !! However don't expect me, (or others who have far better disputation skills) to be passive debaters. Early on in a thread somewhere Daniel_M once asked his 'opponent' to define God. A great starting point,, [paraphrasing] if you believe in God please explain what God is so I can understand... No definition of God was provided. I guess once you define God you are left open to have any definition queried, in the end that seems to lead inexorably to a blind faith conclusion. I do not visit Elite everyday and I often find a discussion has moved a lot from where I last posted .I therefore tend to leave undone some responses I should make, but certainly I would like everyone to talk issues through as you suggest. I enjoy examining the contributions of many intelligent and thoughtful contributors on both sides of the debate and I will join in. Shoeshineboy seems to be willing to hold a more, should I say "reasoned" debate, so things are encouraging! So I ask again alfonso, just what is so complicated about religion
Let's say the entire surface of the earth was covered in four feet of 1982 dimes. But somewhere hidden is one 1983 dime and they're sending out Joe Lottery to find the '83 dime in one trial. If Joe finds the dime, I'm going to say it was divine intervention. Does that really prove it was divine intervention? Of course not, there always an element of faith...