4 ms·

> I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. I don't know if any intelligent design proponents deny creationism in

> I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. I don't know if any intelligent design proponents deny creationism in all its forms. They hardly can, since what they are proposing is itself a form of creationism. But many try to obscure the fact that it is a form of creationism. > what the original poster has said isn't necessarily intelligent design theory. They seem to have in mind the fine-tuning argument, roughly speaking that the order/structure of the universe suggests that the universe was designed It's the same argument, though. Whether it's a "beautiful statue," as in the post I replied to here, or a watch, or a blood-clotting mechanism, or "the order/structure of the universe," the argument is "this thing was clearly designed, therefore the God that I profess to believe in is real." Doesn't matter whether you call it "intelligent design" or "fine-tuning" or whatever, it's all the same: this thing was "designed," therefore there is/was a "designer" who intentionally created it. It's all creationism. This is all sort of an aside from my main point to the post I replied to, which is that by equating the fact that he "feels" there is a God with "feeling" hungry, he is using the words "feel" and "feeling" very sloppily at best, and conflating two very different things in a way that confuses rather than clarifies. Certainly, there are those who use this kind of sloppy language exactly because it confuses rather than clarifies. He may just be a victim of one, possibly many times removed, or he may be one himself. I dunno.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>it's all the same Yes, in the sense that they point towards a creator of the universe. But intelligent design theory is more readily dismissed as anti-scientific nonsense, while the fine-tuning argument is not. Since your original reply to the original poster was that "none of these reasons are reasons", and you went on to say, re: the design argument, nothing more than "this is a creationist argument", the implication seemed to be that an argument being a creationist one is reason enough to dismiss it. If you were just making a comment that the argument was expressing a belief that the universe was created (creationism), that seems fairly obvious, and I don't have anything to quibble about.
- f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
  I would not agree that the fine-tuning argument "point[s] towards a creator." As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. Nothing about a creator. Certainly, there are those, seemingly including you, who would like to use it to "point towards a creator," but I think that in general, they want to point in that direction regardless, and will hang their hats on whatever comes along that seems like it might get them where they want to go.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    >As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. This is just a fact, no? The fine-tuning argument is something like, Premise (1) this fact is true, and it must be because of chance, necessity, or design. Premise (2) it is not by chance or necessity. Conclusion: it is by design. You can reject the premises (probably premise 2), but it's a valid (even if unsound) argument whose conclusion points towards a creator. And its rejection probably warrants some explanation rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.
    - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
      Good lord. Your (2) is entirely unfounded and can absolutely be rejected with no further explanation than that. All you have is (1), from which no conclusion can be drawn. Again, nothing about (1) itself "points towards a creator." You just seem to wish that it did.
      - knightoffaith 3y ago
        At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Given that there's an apparently narrow range in which certain universal/cosmological constants lie, outside of which life (possibly the universe itself in the way we know it) would be impossible, it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. And in the same way that we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times in a row isn't by chance (we would probably have no trouble saying it's by design in this case, that is, the coin has been rigged), it seems plausible to say the Goldilocks state of affairs isn't by chance. And it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are, so it seems that it's not by necessity. So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. There is, I think, a good case to be made against (2)---for example, an appeal to the anthropic principle, or an appeal to multiverse theory. But this is far from a rejection with no further explanation.

knightoffaith 3y ago

>it's all the same Yes, in the sense that they point towards a creator of the universe. But intelligent design theory is more readily dismissed as anti-scientific nonsense, while the fine-tuning argument is not. Since your original reply to the original poster was that "none of these reasons are reasons", and you went on to say, re: the design argument, nothing more than "this is a creationist argument", the implication seemed to be that an argument being a creationist one is reason enough to dismiss it. If you were just making a comment that the argument was expressing a belief that the universe was created (creationism), that seems fairly obvious, and I don't have anything to quibble about.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
I would not agree that the fine-tuning argument "point[s] towards a creator." As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. Nothing about a creator. Certainly, there are those, seemingly including you, who would like to use it to "point towards a creator," but I think that in general, they want to point in that direction regardless, and will hang their hats on whatever comes along that seems like it might get them where they want to go.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  >As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. This is just a fact, no? The fine-tuning argument is something like, Premise (1) this fact is true, and it must be because of chance, necessity, or design. Premise (2) it is not by chance or necessity. Conclusion: it is by design. You can reject the premises (probably premise 2), but it's a valid (even if unsound) argument whose conclusion points towards a creator. And its rejection probably warrants some explanation rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
    Good lord. Your (2) is entirely unfounded and can absolutely be rejected with no further explanation than that. All you have is (1), from which no conclusion can be drawn. Again, nothing about (1) itself "points towards a creator." You just seem to wish that it did.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Given that there's an apparently narrow range in which certain universal/cosmological constants lie, outside of which life (possibly the universe itself in the way we know it) would be impossible, it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. And in the same way that we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times in a row isn't by chance (we would probably have no trouble saying it's by design in this case, that is, the coin has been rigged), it seems plausible to say the Goldilocks state of affairs isn't by chance. And it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are, so it seems that it's not by necessity. So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. There is, I think, a good case to be made against (2)---for example, an appeal to the anthropic principle, or an appeal to multiverse theory. But this is far from a rejection with no further explanation.