What's your defense for intelligent design user?

Kek you are a fuckin retard lel kill yourself

The fine tuning argument is a pretty good defense I think.

Given that we know the universe is contingent and has a beginning, what sounds more reasonable to you?

>An intelligent, necessary being created the universe to be suitable to exist and to support life

>there are just infinite universes and we just happen to be in the one that got everything right, even though infinity isnt even a real concept but a theoretical one

I like the cosmological argument, myself, but I'm pretty big on rationality in general. Fine-tuning is cool but generally doesn't have much effect on people who don't already accept your conclusion. It's an argument of probability when most of your opponents are going to demand certainty.
I also have personal experiences that lead me to believe God-of-the-Bible is real

The first one

A human being able to ask the question wether or not there is a God already implicates the existence of human beings. The mere existence of human beings and a world that can sustain them is therefor a non sequitor to the discussion.

The list of finely tuned aspects of the universe that are literally 1 in tens of trillions of a chance is so extraordinarily coincidental, that I am profoundly unsatisfied by that answer.

To borrow an analogy from John Leslie, thats like being set up for the firing squad, hearing the guns go off and finding that every bullet missed and just concluding "well they im alive so they must have all missed" and simply stopping there. WHY did they miss? Thats a rational next step and thats where a lot of the evidence in quantum physics points to the idea of a creator, and intelligent design.

Great point!

>le life meme

it's just chemical reactions, get over yourself

The greatest trick that God ever pulled was convincing us we matter.

There is no reason to believe that the very low probability of causal events lining up in such a way as to culminate in human life is more special than anything else.

>le nihilist meme

When you examine the facts (and lack thereof) about consciousness, and probabilities behind anything existing, let alone us, you'll find that that nihilism is a bigger leap of faith than deism.

Consider that intelligence, color, consciousness and all the stars share the same origin, and God becomes the reasonable assumption.

But of course, then we could find out about God by studying reality.

You do not understand the answer and neither does John Leslie. Asking "WHY" they missed is completely nonsensical if we take the even to truly be random. This in turn means that by assuming that the question of "WHY" is a reasonable one you are already presupposing that certain non-random elements were involved in the event. If you actually had any knowledge of quantum physics you would be aware of this.

lel whatever nerd read any good pop-sci books lately?

Thats true, and I'm abstaining from using scripture even though I am a Christian, but the requirements for matter and life to exist are so precise, and the probabilities so extraordinarily low, that it actually makes less assumptions to postulate a creator. I think that a lot of people just dont like this conclusion so they ignore it.

It could be random chance as you say, I wont say that its impossible thats its all one accident. But thats not the unassailable truth that many think it is either.

The randomness of the universe is something I do account for, just not something I personally believe although I do not doubt its possibility. But the utter randomness of the events in question reveal coincidences that are extraordinary in every sense of the word. To just simply shrug and accept the randomness of the universe is good and well, but very unsatisfying even to atheists like Richard Dawkins.

I am agnostic as to the creation of the Universe. Got memed into being a 'cultural Christian', thenon-theistic kind, as I do find descriptive values in the story of Christ, but I'm definitely not a theist, while not ruling out deism. I think you're too quick to judge the probability of our existence. If you line it up with other locally exclusive non-sentient objects in the Universe, you'll see that probabilities can be similar for other things, you just think of yourself as special.

Thing is, I don't know, nor do you, God is not falsifiable, so I'm getting tired of this whole deism meme. All these militant atheists should spend more time attacking you theists and declare themselves agnostic when it comes to the origins of the Universe.

If you flip a truly randomized coin 10000000 times and it comes up heads every time how do you explain that?

>defense for intelligent design

Quantum superposition, the number equivalent to pi, the fact that space-time is flat, perfect geometry in particles, patterns and naturally occurring formations, evolution, random quantum fluctuation, consciousness, dimensions and their implication, advanced maths, and the repeating of several patterns and geometries in strata relating to intelligent life. Now, reconciling this with the idea of God...
First, you have to decide what "God," even is. If you are looking for something that is a culmination of all outcomes, a totality of possibilities, such a thing exists in quantum physics, but doesn't use such a name. And as far as the paranormal is concerned, I daresay that a lot of it is related to consciousness, which has been shown to affect the physical world in at least some degree (certain waves acting like particles when observed, for example) showing some degree of "sentience," (note: I use that word very loosely here) unrelated to a similar purported "sentience," that black holes have been thought to possess.

Well the very first thing I would do is make sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that the coin is randomized

God did it.

And what would you do if you found nothing that gave you a reason to suspect that it was not random?

Stop talking about quantum physics without having actually studied them beyond pop-sci articles. You are triggering me, friend.

>implying

Explain.

wew lad, if you'd focus less on a basement dweller understanding of quantum physics, you'd see that your point was already covered in this thread by other people who like to talk about non-falsifiable shit. maybe take it from there, you can talk more freely when you don't require as much formal training as in QM

>I know karate, judo, kung-fu and many other scary words
You need to go back to plebbit, friendo.

If humans are intelligently designed then explain me

The best argument against ID is the puddle analogy imo.

Say there is a puddle in a slight dip in a road, suddenly this puddle gains consciousness and is able to perceive and observe its surroundings.
It sees the hole that it lies in and sees how perfectly it fits into it, the body of water just brimming in the dip, filling it.
Now is it reasonable for the puddle to exclaim that the dip/hole it is in was "just made" for it? Or is it a case of the reality that we learn from science - that rain precipitated and filled the hole?

I find this natural approach better as it makes you think that things just ARE, that this IS the way that things have happened. Most of debate over epistemology, cosmology and theology always have this anthropomorphic element to them, had no life existed in our universe at all, due to a slight fine tuning in the laws of physics etc, then no one would even be able to debate over it.
I think it's silly to think we are plumped here by ID when, if life can arise, then of course it would anyway.
I don't know how else to rephrase it so I'll just stop there. I value scientific methods, or atleast evidence-based methods over wishing something into existence.

>this post
Good god, you are the quintessential fedora lord. Literally zero understanding of things you're refering to and some idiotic babby-tier 'lets define God' rambling.

t. r/Science and YouTube podcast polymath
I despise your kind the most, you people don't even have solid high-school tier understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. yet you have the nerve to talk as if you were experts in all sciences. Not everyone is a pseud that will bow down in fear to your needlessly inflated vocabulary - you are a clueless retard, easily spotted by anyone with actual knowledge.

This post should be preserved in International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the ideal prototype of 1 fedora kilotip.

It's not. Educate yourself.

nyehehe
have a (You) you clever fiend.

Example for others on how not to live.

>A lot of the evidence in quantum physics points to the idea of a creator, and intelligent design.
Pls do not embarrasse yourself. Name one.

I think we would first have to agree on what the criteria for intelligent design consists of.

Okay, well, then give me a crash course on how to correct my arguments, instead of attacking the virtue of my statements. I would gladly appreciate a better understanding of these topics if my understanding of them is inferior.

How dare you (You) me and quote the other dude!? Don't insult me!

Oooh an atheist AND anti capitalis aren't you just the specialist of snowflakes. BTW how's sophomore year going?

Jesus fucking christ please never post again

lel

Why should we defend this childish madness?

aww, you sparked some compassion in me. not the guy you replied to, but another user who took a cathartic shit on your post.
> then give me a crash course on how to correct my arguments, instead of attacking the virtue of my statements
I'm gonna propose a different approach. How about you unpack all that unnecessary jargon that you've enumerated devoid of semantics? Either expand on your argument including all the concepts you've enumerated, or neatly compress it into a tighter philosophical argument. Then tell me it hasn't been covered by any of the other retards in this thread that feel like they can rationally declare themselves as anything but agnostic with regards to deism.

Reminder that religion threads are all posted by /x/ schizophrenics or 8gag marketers.

Very intelligently desingned indeed.

>Le fine tuned for life meme
Holy shit this must end. 99.999999% of the observable universe is completely void of any and all life and could never sustain life even looking millions of years into the future.

The earth is is the luckiest place in the entire universe, as far as we can tell. Maybe god did put us here, but holy shit nothing in this desolate hellscape of a universe is fine tuned.

>give me a crash course on how to correct my arguments
Why are millennials obsessed with instant knowledge? There is no such thing, studying takes time. You might want to start with high-school physics (if that's the field of your choice) and gradually work your way up. You cannot have "opinions" on quantum mechanics, while struggling with high-school tier physics. I'd bet you don't even know basic Newton's formulae. Don't be a retard.

Truly intelligent.
God, it's official, you suck.

way da go

>cause and effect
>random
pick one

Now, you're just being overly condescending. And, way to assume I just want everything handed to me on a silver platter. I was just thinking, considering you're the expert, that you would be aware of a road-map to understanding said quantum phenomena better. Like, which books to pick up, et cetera.

>I was just thinking, considering you're the expert, that you would be aware of a road-map to understanding said quantum phenomena better. Like, which books to pick up, et cetera
But I did give you the instructions: start with elementary or high-school physics.

I don't have to defend it. All philosophies or religions are just coping mechanisms for dealing with life. I realize most of the things I think of and use to get through another day without killing myself are absurd, but that's fine with me.

I, OP am neither of those. I like discussing it I think it's important

>All philosophies or religions are just coping mechanisms for dealing with life
That belief is sort of both a philosophy and religion in itself

It's consistent with being a philosophy and religion in itself, though.

Your mother is a philosophy AND a religion.

...

Top kek

This is what children actually believe.

as above
so below

anything can be defended, but not everything can be defended well

>intelligent design
>design is inherently intelligent
>defining definitions within the confines of define

the anthropic principle upends the fine tuned universe universe theory too easily though

coincidences coincidentally can just be coincidences; to extract meaning from them is logically unsound. correlation =/= causation

describing physical reality doesn't describe an intelligent origin for that reality

and defining god as such doesn't add anything to our understanding of the cosmos; it's the equivalent of naming a pet

this is the most convincing argument so far

Daily reminder that you can die in car crash for this kind of thoughts.

jung agrees

>as above, as below
Way to be vague.
>anything can be defended
True, but not reliably.
>defining definitions within confines of define
So your argument to semantics is more semantics?
>anthropic principle
cannot be proven
>extract meaning from coincidences
this is one of the key components of science
>describing physical reality doesn't describe an intelligent origin
How does it not? Define "intelligence," in a non-physical way.
>defining god is like naming a pet
and so just blindly accepting some undefined thing on the basis of faith is more convincing than trying to ascertain what it is that you're trying to define the existence or non-existence of?
>god did it
what god?

...

Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean omnipotent design. Most people don't seem to get this nuance.

>God didn't make us perfect, therefore He does not exist.
Get a load of this cunt.

God is beyond human perception and understanding. God is all that we cannot understand or perceive.
The Holy Spirit is the miracle of cooperation. Cooperation of atoms to make molecules, molecules to make elements, elements to make chemical compounds, and those to make microbiotic life, and that life to cooperate to make larger and larger beings and those beings cooperating to make complex society.
Jesus is the symbol that man is the ultimate culmination of the above. Jesus, the greatest man was a piece of God not just through heritage but because he knew what those around him couldn't.

I'm interested. Expand on that.

...

It's not about perfection you faglord. No designer would come up with stupid bullshit like that.

Almost all diseases can be traced to an error in lifestyle. So yes, it is fair that a designer would make up shit like cancer and diabetes to kill off the people eating animals and being obese.

Wew lad. Looks like we got an immortal shit poster boys.

Pardon? I'm neither nor. Read again. Thanks, however, for bringing Sophomore year to mind. Happy time.

>True, but not reliably
that point was made in the second clause
>So your argument to semantics is more semantics?
what is: illustrating the crux of the problem
>cannot be proven
if physical reality is conducive to generating beings that can think, then any conceivable fundamental change to that reality will render it non-conducive to being thought of as reality—in generating beings that can think—therefore however that reality is thought to be is the only way it can be thought of at all, else it becomes incomprehensible in our framework of maths. our maths only make sense because we're the ones making sense of them
>this is one of the key components of science
but it isn't. science extracts theories from data and events, the term coincidence is essentially subjective—logically unsound, as Hume demonstrated
>How does it not? Define "intelligence," in a non-physical way.
well, depends on how you *choose* to define it. Absolute idealism would be one way to do it non-physically, for example
> and so just blindly accepting some undefined thing on the basis of faith is more convincing than trying to ascertain what it is that you're trying to define the existence or non-existence of?
idk where you got that idea from. I wasnt making any claims about faith. My point was that we have an obligation to describe the universe, not to define the historically socially theologically loaded ambiguous term 'god.' It's essentially become meaningless at this point
>what god?
the god loki!

>I have personal experiences

Into the trash.

>because I am able to exist within the universe, the universe MUST be designed just for me! xD

You're just assigning intent ex-post-facto, nothing more. If they universe is designed for us, please explain how 99.9999999% of the universe is apparently uninhabitable for us? Is it *really* that likely that we just happened to exist in the one environment that was capable of giving rise to a creature like ourselves? No, you're assuming that because there is a chicken then somebody must have placed the egg into the nest, when in reality it's far more likely that it was an evolving process.

Pls tell me this is bait

>more likely
Why is this relevant?

He's actually right, though, user. Congenital health issues like type 1 diabetes and Huntington's are really just manifestations of Munchausen's syndrome. You can trace them back to a single moment.

t. medical doctor here

Why? muh lawwwjik?

Do I need one?

What's your defense for needing a defense for intelligent design?

You need to qualify your question if you want a quality answer. Or: your question of intelligent design needs to be intelligently designed.

I'm one of those edgelord agnostics so I don't have one.

>Given that we know the universe is contingent and has a beginning
I have seen no evidence for either claim

How about we agree that nobody who doesn't have a degree in physics or chemistry gets to use the word "quantum" in this thread.

>faglord
Oh, that explains it. Why are you still in the computer lab 4th grader?

Studied biochem to masters. You can't tell me this shit ain't designed.

You don't understand the complexity and accuracy of these chemical reactions. That's like saying the universe is just muh charges.

>WHY did they miss? Thats a rational next step and thats where a lot of the evidence in quantum physics points to the idea of a creator, and intelligent design.

That just protrays a naive understanding of probability. Unlikely events happen, they just don't happen very often copared to likely events. And the answer to "Why" are then their probabilities,
which come down to mundane scientific explanations.

Besides, I don't like the idea of "porbability" of human existence, because we have a weak sample size at best (maybe almost every star system has intelligent life), and it's an ill defined question (it treats the universe as a probabilisitc model, as if you could "reroll" the dice on it any time).

The quantum physics part of your answer is obviously bullshit.

What you're asking is to teach you shikimate pathways without knowledge of basic chemistry. It can't be done.

>it treats the universe as a probabilisitc model, as if you could "reroll" the dice on it any time

This

Just because something requires very specific circumstances to happen doesn't mean that it shouldn't or won't happen naturally and without any sort of outside force directing it to happen.

For example, most people would agree that it's highly improbable that Fabio would be hit in the face by a goose while on a rollercoaster at bush gardens, and some people would say that an event like that would have to be scripted.

However, just because it's unlikely, or even absurd, doesn't mean that it was set up. It's entirely possible that it happened on it's own, and because we have no direct evidence that it didn't happen so it would be quite silly to argue that's the case when it's much simpler to say that a goose just thought that Fabio's face looked like an attractive target.

youtube.com/watch?v=U8PgcCe3P_c

>Talking about adavnced physics when you dont even know basic calculus or classical Newtonian mechanics.
>Claiming that consciousness affects the physical world and that a "conscious observer" causes the wave-function to collapse.

Im not a hardline materialist or anything like that, but this is simply false. (1) Youre confusing so-called "interpretations of quantum mechanics" with quantum mechanics itself, (2) You're citing tge Copenhagen Interpretation as if it were accepted fact, and (3) I believe you fail to realize that this isnt even the most popular or dominant interpretation amongst actaul physicists and philosophers of physics.

Here's a little battle plan for you: (1) learn basics Calculus (calculus I-III), (2) Learn Newtonian Mechanics (3) Learns some linear algebra, differential equations, and topology, (4) Learn about electromagnetism and basic chemistry regarding electron orbitals and shit, (5) Start studying actual quantum mechanics, (6) Start studying phulosophy of physics and interpretations of quantum mechanics, (7) Now you can begin speculating about quantum mechanics and its ontological and epistemological implications. Keep in mind this will all take about 4 years or so. Also, stop wasting your time reading popsci and Scientific Amerixan articles. Reading a book by Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking doesnt qualify you to discuss physics in any real capcity, nor does it even really teach you much about the subject. If anything such books are more so useful for their historical and sociological insights into the development of contemporary physics.

Then again, you could be spend your time studying philosophy of language and logic and have way more fun... Studying shit like Lambda Calculus, primitive recursive funtions, the incompleteness theorems, Montague Semantics, group theory, category theory, set theory, the foundations of mathematics, generative grammar, the Halting Problem, Witrgenstein, etc.