What is the atheist response to the intelligent design argument?

What is the atheist response to the intelligent design argument?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >a vast universe with trillions of planets
    >only one so far is known to bear life
    >that life needed 4 billion years to evolve into something capable of worship
    Super intelligent design truly godesque

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      They don't really have any.
      The official response from the athiest religion is...
      > UMM...SWEETIE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED!

      That's a great argument for God, btw.
      The fact that humanity is so fricking unique in this vast universe.
      Even our plant where there is an untold number of species only one has developed sentience.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >this is intelligent because, i say so.
        this is dumb because i say so

        assblasted?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It really isn't. This is exactly the kind of Universe you'd expect for there to be humans and no god: a uselessly huge and old place incredibly hostile to us.
        >Even our plant where there is an untold number of species only one has developed sentience.
        It's the only one we've discovered with life in this hostile hellhole.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >this is intelligent because, i say so.
          this is dumb because i say so

          assblasted?

          > A Highly ordered and well governed by physical laws universe is NOT intelligent.
          > BECAUSE I JUST SAID SO, OKAY!
          I accept your concession, israelites.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Universe is governed by physical laws, sure. But to state 'therefore God' makes no sense - these laws could be inherent to the Universe.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If we call an ecumenical council right now, and vote to give God the title "Universal" (meaning infinite and timeless) will you worship Him? Will you pray to Genghis God?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Highly ordered and well governed by physical laws universe
            Where? Quantum mechanics is the opposite of what you're describing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            All around you. Quantum mechanics operate according to laws. They are just not the ones we're used to.
            You're doing a sort of "chaos of the gaps" argument - every couple decades we figure out how things work and the frontlines of scientific inquiry move by a couple inches and people believing what you believe go "well yeah now THAT's where the chaos is". It isn't. It's laws all the way down.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Quantum mechanics operate according to laws.
            That doesn't make the universe remotely highly ordered. Try again.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            order in operations
            >Not ordered tho
            I think I'm satisfied with how this turned out, thanks.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            To me, this whole thing is silly.

            If on not-theism, we assume infinite possibility space, where anything is possible (stuff could behave chaotically, no laws, etc)
            And on theism, we assume limited possibility space, where we get the data we happen to observe (regularity, laws, etc)
            Then limited possibility space, seems more likely than infinite possibility space.
            Well... Duh.

            Besides, why are you ruling out a God who would want to cause a universe chaotic universe without laws?
            Ad hoc nonsense.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            order in operations
            rofl have you ever heard of quantum mechanics?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. See

            All around you. Quantum mechanics operate according to laws. They are just not the ones we're used to.
            You're doing a sort of "chaos of the gaps" argument - every couple decades we figure out how things work and the frontlines of scientific inquiry move by a couple inches and people believing what you believe go "well yeah now THAT's where the chaos is". It isn't. It's laws all the way down.

            and stop listening to Neil DeGrass Tyson.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Quantum mechanics operate according to laws.
            That doesn't make the universe remotely highly ordered. Try again.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That doesn't make the universe remotely highly ordered
            Err, it very much is.
            It's what enables us to command such impressive technology.
            Dumbshit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's what enables us to command such impressive technology.
            Oh we have technology to guide every single individual photon and electron? Since when?

            >Walk me through it, what observations?
            Observing order only appearing/increasing when an intelligence supplies it.
            >What inferences are you making?
            That establishment of order requires intelligence external to that order.
            Laws are such order.

            [...]
            >laws
            >not order
            I think I'm satisfied with this try lol

            >I think I'm satisfied with failing lol
            Pathetic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the frick do you ACTUALLY know about quantum mechanics?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh not much. I know how to solve differential equations and work with Hilbert spaces. What about you?

      • 5 months ago
        Chud Anon

        >Even our plant where there is an untold number of species only one has developed sentience

        There were many more hominid species

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The fact that humanity is so fricking unique in this vast universe
        Baseless assumption, and "uniqueness" is not a real, measurable thing, nor does it necessarily have any significance. Every individual rock in the world is "unique" in some sense in terms of it's structure, position, makeup, etc. Does that mean there must be a magical israelite god because there's a unique rock on the ground outside?

        >Even our plant where there is an untold number of species only one has developed sentience.
        Baseless assumption, most or all vertebrates are plausibly sentient, and that's easily explainable as mere happenstance. Your assumption that the trait of "sentience" is a big deal is itself false. Objectively, it has no significance whatsoever. Might as well say there's a magic israelite god because only one potato in my potato cabinet got moldy.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      except there aren't trillions of planets and the earth isn't 4 billion years old.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the theist response to the argument from poor design?

    • 5 months ago
      Ο Σολιταίρ

      >*Anon designs the "perfect" biosphere*
      >It's just a living blob of tissue covering the earth

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I could design a better world than God seemingly has. In fact, Christian and Muslims would agree with me on that: God is able to make a perfectly good Heaven.

        >Why god a meanie????

        He isn't since to be "a meanie" you have to exist, but being self-contradictory like that is impossible - unless you're a liar.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      this

      some glaring flaws of biology in most species shows that were are "as good as possible" with the given circumstances, and that's how evolution works: weed out stuff that is not up to the minimum requirements for the task

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well for most cases I find it to be a lack of understanding. For the few remaining cases I admit I don't understand but have faith there was reason, which is supported by the many other cases were a reason was later discovered. There have been many cases were we though a design was dumb only to later find out there was another reason which made it useful adn we learned from it. This is why I like the old idea that religion should fund science so that we can better understand how God made the world and by doing so better know him, and I don't mean that in the overwriting manner many would understandably dislike as even funding atheist scientists would be compatible as research data is research data.

      While I'm not familiar with the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I have had many debates about the whole giraffe necks get longer as an argument for evolution only to find atheist confused when I point out how the blood pressure and additional organs all also come into play as it a far more complex then just make neck longer.

  3. 5 months ago
    Ο Σολιταίρ

    >Why god a meanie????

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no intelligent design argument

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cope and seethe
      Intelligent design is proven
      Evolution is pseudo science

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cry more

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Intelligent design is proven
          >Evolution is pseudo science

          Cope and seethe you anti science moron
          Earth is proven almost 6000 years old
          We did not evolve from monkeys

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Meds

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know many famous creationist scientists
            Ive seen the documents
            Enjoy hell

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >many people who look smart are saying it therefore it's true
            Christians, this is your mindset.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Intelligent design is proven
        >Evolution is pseudo science

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No seriously, what's response? They have to have one which has evolved don't they?

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Come on atheists, just let it out. I wouldn't be harsh on it, I promise.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. Survivors bias. We have no idea if the design of our universe was intelligent, takes skill, or even allows for variation. For all we know the Universe we inhabity might be #586040638884346783 times million, and all the previous ones exploded or never formed planet or bore life. Remember, given infinite time even the slimmest possibility becomes certainty.
    2. Why would a transcendental being like God create an intelligently designed Universe at all? Intelligence only makes sense for liminted being inhabiting the world with set parameters, like humans, to discern their actions from unintelligent ones. For example, an intelligent being knows that gravity exists and won't do something stupid like jumping off the cliff expecting to fly. God cannot be constrained by intelligence, it would mean that laws of physics and logic precede God. Theists would have an argument if utterly unexplained yet easily observable phenomena existed (so no dark matter or black holes). For example, if rabbits could run faster than the speed of sound, while their bodies remained identical to regular rabbits. Such rabbits would be divine in nature and present a good argument for godly presence. But we know of no such SCP-like objects. The world is void of miracles.
    3. Male breasts.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Survivors bias.
      This has been debunked by the marksman analogy.
      It's like being aimed at by five trained marksman for execution but after the moment they fire, you're still alive.
      So you're conclusion is that that's what to be expected, since that is the outcome to begin with.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        How does that debunk the issue of survivor bias?
        Survivor bias isn't meant to disprove an intelligent creator exists, it disproves the intelligent design argument specifically.

        We only have one universe we can observe, and we cannot compare what a designed, and non-designed universe is, nor do we have access to what the motivations of any intelligent designer's motivations.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >We only have one universe
          This presumes the multi-verse theology which is even more ridiculous than the cult of athiesm.
          It is a non-argument.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This presumes the multi-verse theology

            it is the direct refutation of multiverse theory?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >1. Survivors bias. We have no idea if the design of our universe was intelligent, takes skill, or even allows for variation. For all we know the Universe we inhabity
      Completely irrelevant as it assumes the existence of other universes and even if other universes existed, the intelligent design argument makes no statement about them.
      This is weak.
      > 2. Why would a transcendental being like God create an intelligently designed Universe at all?
      Speculating on the motivation of the entity is irrelevant.
      As it is as I stated PURELY speculative.
      You israelites are quite the incompetent debators.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The other anon might have mixed up some of his arguments about why multiple universes is almost surely a necessity, but
        >Completely irrelevant as it assumes the existence of other universes
        How is that assumption irrelevant to the intelligent design discussion? If you have a large enough sample size and apply the anthropic principle, there should be literally nothing strange at all about our admittedly extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely circumstances. There are plenty of suggestions for models of the universe that lead to infinite numbers of them, so it’s really not that strange that life emerged at all, or that really any of those other great barriers were crossed on the path towards man waking up to realise this fact. Technically that means that there will be universes in which something SIMILAR to your Christian god emerges randomly, but the probability we are in one such universe is infinitesimally small

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How is that assumption irrelevant to the intelligent design discussion?
          It presumes the existence of other universes, who have nothing to do with our current universe onto which the intelligent design argument passes no
          >There are plenty of suggestions for models of the universe that lead to infinite numbers of them
          The field of astrology and physics have turned into pseudo-theological BS and are thus irrelevant.
          Also, you can get a model to spit out whatever the frick you wanted to spit out provided you are willing to just come up with new variables on the fly.
          We have no evidence for a multi verse.
          As such it is pointless to include its alleged existence.
          Not even reading the rest of your anti-science schizo babble.
          Meds, please.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The field of astrology and physics have turned into pseudo-theological BS
            That you don't understand the world (or that any human doesn't) doesn't mean that it cannot be

            >We have no evidence for a multi verse.
            We have no evidence for God. If you say that your evidence is intelligent design, that is, the improbability of unordered, random emergence, then that is precisely the same evidence as there is for a multiverse

            >anti-science schizo babble.
            That's really funny anon. But it's fine anon. Dodge any point that disagrees with your warm, comforting lie

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That you don't understand the world (or that any human doesn't) doesn't mean that it cannot be
            I am not the one who makes shit up like the multi-verse and tries to associate with science.
            And yes, modern physics is a fricking joke, this is proven by its UTTER lack of ability to produce any practical results since the 1940s.
            > We have no evidence for God.
            It's called the universe.

            >Even our plant where there is an untold number of species only one has developed sentience

            There were many more hominid species

            >There were many more hominid species
            We can never determine wether they were sentient or not.

            If God made everything, I'm still not clear on why the human endocrinal system, is more designed than a rock

            Is the point of intelligent design to say: "this thing looks designed! probably a God did it."
            How can you say that, if it's true for literally anything in the universe?

            >"this thing looks designed! probably a God did it."
            >How can you say that, if it's true for literally anything in the universe?
            It holds true for the whole orderly universe in which we reside in.
            All the things that look "designed" are so due to their abidance by strict physical rules that governs our universe.
            It is only reasonable to deduce the existence of a higher being responsible for creating such rules.

          • 5 months ago
            Chud Anon

            >We can never determine wether they were sentient or not.

            Neanderthals had rudimentary artifacts and burial rituals indicating some level of sentience

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is only reasonable to deduce the existence of a higher being responsible for creating such rules.
            Got an argument to support this?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I just made it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Premises and conclusion, please

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Intellectually obfuscation this hard.
            I don't have to deal with this.
            The argument is there, either take it or frick off.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, where did you think you made an argument?
            In this post

            >That you don't understand the world (or that any human doesn't) doesn't mean that it cannot be
            I am not the one who makes shit up like the multi-verse and tries to associate with science.
            And yes, modern physics is a fricking joke, this is proven by its UTTER lack of ability to produce any practical results since the 1940s.
            > We have no evidence for God.
            It's called the universe.
            [...]
            >There were many more hominid species
            We can never determine wether they were sentient or not.
            [...]
            >"this thing looks designed! probably a God did it."
            >How can you say that, if it's true for literally anything in the universe?
            It holds true for the whole orderly universe in which we reside in.
            All the things that look "designed" are so due to their abidance by strict physical rules that governs our universe.
            It is only reasonable to deduce the existence of a higher being responsible for creating such rules.

            ?
            It's just assertions.

            I want an argument, not barrel of claims dumped at my feet

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We have no evidence for a multi verse.
            Or God. At this time, the multiverse is more plausible than God because at least one universe is already known to exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            no it isnt

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no it isnt
            The universe exists, so, yes it is.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            that isnt evidence theres more universes. Theres one earth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that isnt evidence theres more universes.
            I never said it was evidence, moron. I said more universes were "more plausible" than the existence of "God". Whatever that thing is even supposed to be.

            > Theres one earth.
            That doesn't mean fricking anything. There's one Mars. There's one specific flea on a specific rat. There's one grain of sand in my fish tank named Jimmy. There's one pile of shit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you moron you are literally saying because there is a universe IT IS evidence of more than one.

            >one earth
            Because earth is unique you FRICKING MORON. There could be just one earth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you moron you are literally saying because there is a universe IT IS evidence of more than one
            I never said that anywhere. Something doesn't require evidence to be plausible.
            >Because earth is unique you FRICKING MORON.
            Earth is unique, you're right, but every other planet in the entire universe is unique, including trillions of barren, lifeless rocks, so what's your point?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            that is what you are saying you are god damn liar. So sick of the epidemic of sociopathic liars on the net.

            >Earth
            ok moron WHY IS EARTH UNIQUE? use your soggy brain matter.
            Also no not every planet is unique relative to earth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that is what you are saying you are god damn liar.
            Please quote the post where I said that there's evidence of the multiverse.

            >ok moron WHY IS EARTH UNIQUE?
            It occupies a unique position in spacetime and has unique anatomy and makeup. The exact same thing can be said about every small asteroid in the universe.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are a complete fool. Its unique because it has life on it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Its unique because it has life on it.
            Unique only amongst known and well studied planets. There may be other planets with life on them somewhere, you don't know that, so your statement is unjustifiable and should be retracted to avoid embarassment.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >may
            kek this is when athiest tards prove they are the same as christtards.
            There is no may. There is no proof of alien life anywhere.
            Its entirely possible there is only one earth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no may.
            Yes there is.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            no there isnt. You are all feels before reals. You WANT there to be aliens. Doesnt mean there is aliens.
            You spent half an hour itt thumbing your nose up at evidence.
            Then you finally reveal that your beliefs trump facts and logic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no there isnt
            Yes there is. Your inability to integrate the concepts of chance, uncertainty, ambiguity, and nuance into your thought processes is reminiscent of mindless, stupid machines. You are simpler than me, lesser.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are an idiot. Educate yourself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cope. You're literally too moronic to comprehend probability. Do you even have object permanence?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            All you are doing is name dropping terms like "probability, uncertainty, ambiguity" etc
            Then making a statement with no factual basis in reality eg Aliens are real. This is purely what you believe to be true.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then making a statement with no factual basis in reality eg Aliens are real.
            In which post did I say that?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            stop lying. Try it moron

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If I'm lying, quote the specific post where I said that aliens are real. You won't because there's no post where I said that, pussy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            People are not stupid you fricking moronic child. Just because you think you are a special snowflake.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >atheists are willing to assume an infinite variety of other universe, but aren't willing to assume God exists in any of them
      this seems awfully hypocritical and arbritrary

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Multiple universes is necessarily more plausible than one israeli war and storm god because we know already that at least one universe exists, whereas no israelite war and storm gods have been demonstrated to exist.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      God is so good at making a system you don't get glitches like super sonic rabbits.
      You do realize that even the slightest change in the fundamentals of our universe and we all die right?
      Why do you think God would make such a error as to destroy everything he made?
      Wouldn't couldn't such a violation be grounds also be argued that we failed to understand something that could be outside our understanding or proof God made a mistake and everything is going to break?
      If so how does it support your position?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You do realize that even the slightest change in the fundamentals of our universe and we all die right?
        A fleck of my shit wouldn't have hit a specific spot in my toilet bowl if I hadn't eaten Taco Bell at a particular pace and ordered a particular meal prepared by particular workers. Must be God.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think you are conflating liner causation with axiom system balance. Also bounded free will is also at play in your example as there is the choice to eat at Taco Bell which adds to the number of variables and makes your argument harder to follow. Try to use simpler examples or abstraction to help avoid conflating ideas for your main point, you can follow with real examples afterwards for real world reference it helps to keep the ideas clear that way.
          You think a fleck your shit is on par with something like the gravitational constant in terms of universal effects?
          Also do you know what a fundamentals of our universe refers to in this context?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You think a fleck your shit is on par with something like the gravitational constant in terms of universal effects?
            Their objective significance and importance is identical. You know how much significance and importance that is? None whatsoever.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If we convert it to terms of energy we can actually calculate how significant it is.
            We make two functions we can compare.
            First one is X1*1=Z1. Where X1 is the mass of a fleck of your shit, we'll assume 1 gram for simplicity. 1 represents the original matter energy conversion. Z1 is the energy value.

            Where as changing the axiom for matter energy conversion we get a function like X2*Y=Z2, were X2 is all matter in the universe and Y is the delta between the original matter energy conversion compared to a new matter energy conversion and Z2 is the final answer in energy terms for the new system

            We can cancel out the energy part out after the delta change so we can use mass to allow us to compare the original and new matter energy conversion. As Xm1 and Xm2 with the m showing post modification, so putting in actually values 1.81436948 × 10^55 grams as a calculated value of the mass of the universe and 1 gram as what was used for your fleck of shit we get as the solution for your claim to be true.
            (1.81436948 × 10^55 grams*Y) - 1 gram = 0

            I'd like to point out that a significance is around 55 orders of magnitude with base 10 is needed to make an exponentially large number equal 1, so kind of the opposite of None whatsoever.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If we convert it to terms of energy we can actually calculate how significant it is
            Energy isn't important. The Big Bang and a rock rolling down a hill are equally important events; not at all. Just mindless atoms bumping around for no reason.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    nothing to do with your favourite fairy tale character
    >oh yeah le hecking creation proves MY book is true!

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I guess their infinite regress argument died huh? Sad!

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If I was satan and I wanted people to stop obeying god and following his rules, creating Christianity would be the perfect plot. How else could I get sinners to proudly act as if they were saved?

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The complexity of the universe is an argument against a creator, not for one. If it was intelligently designed you'd expect it to be more simplistic and streamlined. The complexity of the universe indicates that it resulted from particles acting according to the laws of physics for 13 billion years.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If God made everything, I'm still not clear on why the human endocrinal system, is more designed than a rock

    Is the point of intelligent design to say: "this thing looks designed! probably a God did it."
    How can you say that, if it's true for literally anything in the universe?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How can you say that, if it's true for literally anything in the universe?
      So are you saying that everything in the universe must have a designer?

      For eons of eons He just... was, and then he said the word Light, and bam, the big bang.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        No eons.

        If God made everything, I'm still not clear on why the human endocrinal system, is more designed than a rock

        Is the point of intelligent design to say: "this thing looks designed! probably a God did it."
        How can you say that, if it's true for literally anything in the universe?

        >Is the point of intelligent design to say: "this thing looks designed! probably a God did it."
        The point is that chaos doesn't produce complexity. We see complexity. In rocks and systems alike.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >chaos doesn't produce complexity
          because ???

          Do you think crystals are physically impossible because of entropy?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because ???
            Because we would have at least one example by now. All we have is "monkey hitting a typewriter" fable.
            >Do you think crystals are physically impossible because of entropy?
            No, crystals are very possible with laws designed in favour of their growth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Spoken like a true philosopher with no inkling nor interest in what science actually says

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Spoken like you have no argument.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Abelian sand piles
            >Chaos theory
            >Genetic algorithms
            >Evolution
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Abelian sand piles (or genes or evolution) don't happen out of chaos. They happen precisely because an implicit order is revealed. You cannot counter the intelligent design argument by merely throwing on it whatever you feel like is random. Self-organization always obeys specific laws and there is always more orderliness by the input than by the output.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You moved the goalpost so far out it makes no sense anymore.
            Of course things follow the laws of physics, how does that mean god is designing things from afar?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The goalposts are at intelligent design all this time.
            >Of course things follow the laws of physics
            Where is the chaos?
            >how does that mean god is designing things from afar?
            There is always more orderliness by the input than by the output. Order doesn't spontaneously induce. Neither laws could spontaneously induce. Laws are designed.

            >chemical energy stored in the gasses that gets released
            bro you don't understand how stars work.

            >What about star formation is chaotic?
            A random cloud of gas collapses in on itself until a small section of the larger cloud reaches critical mass and density to produce nuclear fusion of hydrogen at the core, which creates an equilibrium that prevent the newly formed star from collapsing in on itself further.

            >bro you don't understand how stars work.
            Ok.
            >A random cloud
            Not random, no.
            >collapses in on itself
            According to precise laws.
            >critical mass
            According to precise laws.
            >nuclear fusion of hydrogen
            Releasing energy and increasing entropy.
            I am forced to ask again - what about star formation is chaotic? You described extremely orderly parts.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Chaos theory is "deterministic chaos theory" for short. Determinism is absolute. Chaos is simply what we call non-linear systems

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fine with me.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what science actually says
            You israelites say this and then follow that up with...
            > MUH MULTIVERSE
            > MUH DARK MATTER
            > MUH BIG BANG
            > MUH STRING THEORY
            None of which is science.
            Go frick yourself.
            Science is innocent of your inbred israelite schizo babble.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So chaos can't produce complexity, but we live in a universe where chaos can indeed produce complexity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me. Every example of ungoverned "order" generation will have more order put in than extracted out.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I was summarizing your argument back to you.

            >example
            crystals, star formation

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I addressed crystals.
            What about star formation is chaotic? The precise laws of gravity or the chemical energy stored in the gasses that gets released?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >chemical energy stored in the gasses that gets released
            bro you don't understand how stars work.

            >What about star formation is chaotic?
            A random cloud of gas collapses in on itself until a small section of the larger cloud reaches critical mass and density to produce nuclear fusion of hydrogen at the core, which creates an equilibrium that prevent the newly formed star from collapsing in on itself further.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think this chaos/order distinction is a red herring

            That's not how we recognize design on theism. God designed literally everything, that includes chaotic systems.
            When we look at a chaotic system, we should be able to infer that it's equally as designed, as an ordered system.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's not how we recognize design on theism.
            What could the criteria of recognizing design be, if everything is designed?
            On the theism theory, you'd have no clue what something unsigned could possible look like.

            I think it's a shit argument, because it's entirely ad hoc.
            It's actually just saying: "If God real, we should expect whatever data we happen to observe"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There could be empirical counters to the design theory. We just haven't observed them.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Big disagree
            What could an empirical observation that serves as evidence against intelligent design possibly be? Even in principle

            Theism is compatible with any observation we can make, one can always suppose a God that has a desire to design the universe in such a way, that we get the observations we do. (any possible observation)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            More order at the output of a process than by its input.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are you talking about?
            Why would that possibly be evidence against intelligent design?

            That would simply be evidence of a God who designed an universe where decrease in entropy is possible.
            (which it is in reality, by random chance in smaller parts of a larger system. But that's not relevant to my criticism)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would that possibly be evidence against intelligent design?
            Because it would prove order arises spontaneously in this universe, breaking the continuity of the argument.
            Sure, you could keep your belief in God and walk around it by faith. But we're talking about the argument itself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't realize intelligent design arguments were: "If order doesn't arises spontaneously in this universe, -> then God"

            Don't understand why you presuppose a God that doesn't design a universe where order does spontaneously arise.
            Would really like for this to be supported by an argument for why God could cause one, but not the other. (which can't be made, because God can do anything)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't realize intelligent design arguments were: "If order doesn't arises spontaneously in this universe, -> then God"
            That's a very stupid way to put it, but if that's the way you prefer to hear things, I will not object.

            >Don't understand why you presuppose a God
            The argument doesn't contain a presupposition of God.

            >why God could
            What God could or couldn't also isn't part of the argument.

            So it seems a stupid iteration didn't help you understand it after all. Let me try mine then:
            > order doesn't naturally appear out of nowhere
            > order increases when supplied by intelligent agent
            > laws are orderly
            > since orderly things don't appear out of nowhere, an external agent is necessary to supply them

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's a very stupid way to put
            I think you are running a very stupid argument. I can't fix it.

            By presuppose I God, I mean presuppose that God has certain desires, like 'creating a universe where order doesn't arise spontaneously'

            If you don't make presuppositions about what God would want, or not want to do, you're not going to get any predictions.
            You cannot have evidence for that kind of theism. You need to assert/presuppose/whatever that God has certain kinds of desire.
            Basically what you are doing in the latter part of the post.

            laws -> therefore, God
            Ok. But why would an atheist ever grant this premise?
            This is not a good argument.

            You seriously think if we discovered some thingy where order naturally increased. (Like a perpetual motion engine?)
            It would make theists turn atheist? No way.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I can't fix it.
            I did.

            >If you don't make presuppositions about what God would want, or not want to do, you're not going to get any predictions.
            Except the ones I listed.
            >You need to assert/presuppose/whatever that God has certain kinds of desire.
            I didn't and the argument is still complete.

            >laws -> therefore, God
            >Ok. But why would an atheist ever grant this premise?
            Because he cannot demonstrate orderliness arising from anything besides external intelligence

            >You seriously think if we discovered some thingy where order naturally increased. (Like a perpetual motion engine?)
            >It would make theists turn atheist? No way.
            It would defeat the argument. We're talking about the argument.

            Anon, do you have trouble focusing?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I concede that I may not be communicating very clearly.
            But you did not understand my objection.

            Does theism predict a universe where order doesn't spontaneously arise? Why?
            You've not given an argument for this. And you can't, because Theism does not make predictions.
            This is what I mean by you having to presuppose a God with certain desires, such as causing a universe where order doesn't spontaneously arise.

            God can do anything, right?
            Even create a universe where order DOES spontaneously arise. (you've made the presupposition that a God would not have a desire to cause such a universe)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does theism predict a universe where order doesn't spontaneously arise? Why?
            No. The argument predicts God existing. And it is based on induction from observations. If you break the pattern of observations, you break the prediction of God.

            >And you can't, because Theism does not make predictions.
            I'm not discussing theism as such. I'm talking about the intelligent design argument. And it doesn't presuppose anything besides logical induction being valid.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >based on induction from observations.
            Walk me through it, what observations? What inferences are you making?
            this is something I probably won't grant.

            This goes back to the whole thing: If everything is designed, how do you recognize design?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you playing stupid now?
            Really?
            Piece of shit israelite.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Walk me through it, what observations?
            Observing order only appearing/increasing when an intelligence supplies it.
            >What inferences are you making?
            That establishment of order requires intelligence external to that order.
            Laws are such order.

            >Quantum mechanics operate according to laws.
            That doesn't make the universe remotely highly ordered. Try again.

            >laws
            >not order
            I think I'm satisfied with this try lol

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Observing order only appearing/increasing when an intelligence supplies it.
            On theism, this just IS true for the entirety of the universe.
            Why would there even be such a thing as entropy, if that were the case?

            By observations of order made by intelligence, you are talking about stuff made by humans, right? (Buildings, clocks, a TV, etc)
            What about a beaver dam? (Maybe beavers count as intelligent agents.)
            What about a forest with animals, there's order to a forest. Order to crystals.

            I think all these things just are part of a local system with higher order, due to an outside power source. IE: The sun.
            That's the boring physics explanation, of why you observe decreased entropy. Useful energy turning less useful.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >On theism
            I'm not talking about theism. I'm talking about the intelligent design argument. Don't switch.

            >stuff made by humans, right?
            Yes.
            >beavers count as intelligent
            Yes.
            >there's order to a forest
            >order to crystals
            We were looking for intelligence. Don't switch.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The intelligent designer, it's supposed to be a mind who created the universe?
            That's pretty much theism to me, BUT maybe I should make a distinction so I don't end up mistaking powerful Aliens for gods, or a Matrix computer running a universe simulation.
            Is that stuff you want included on intelligent designer definition, which are excluded on theism?

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Intelligent design is considered heresy by fundamentalist Christians, you are conceding to the evolutionists that their argument has merit.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    "If the designer was so intelligent why to humans have an appendix? Checkmate."

    I'm not religious but I want to highlight a few things about atheism. It is the same as a religious cult. It is not our 'default state'. Modern atheism is an agenda that was mandated and spread by the Bolsheviks, who were israeli. Atheism is essentially secular judaism. This is also why most atheists are israelite lovers. That stone toss comic with the menorah in pee is a fact

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Who in this thread are you quoting? No one. You don't even debunk your strawman because you're a fricking moron who just wants to make a false equivalency. There's a reason it's an insult for atheism to be a religion in your mind.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The idea that athiesm is the default state is utterly absurd.
      Every SINGLE society throughout history had some sort of religion.
      The israelite religion of athiesm is utterly non-sensical...

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >life is about israelites
    No

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >What do you mean I'm a pervert? It's you showing me a bunch of images of creampied pussy, doctor.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Has any person who supports the "intelligent design" viewpoint played a little with a genetic algorithm? If they had, they'd understand how silly their argument is.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Some of the pioneers of the field believe in design.

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who gives a crap about atheist arguments? They are sick people. Atheism is a disease.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was murdered by Kant and then the corpse was raped by Darwin

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How is it possible to sin if God intelligently designed every aspect of human biology?
    >Does this mean God literally built the human nervous system, our psychology, and our reproductive system with the full intention of making rape a possibility?
    >Did he design us specifically so that we were imperfect enough for random mutation to frick us up into horrifying creatures at birth?
    >Did God design eating the flesh of other beings and killing them viciously for food regardless of plant or animal life as the only way to survive instead of perfectly designing some other shit?
    The contradictions raised by the answers to this question inevitably debunk the idea.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      > IF GOD REAL, WHU BAD THING HAPPEN! :*(
      > CHECKMATE, CHRISTIANS!
      This isnt the 2000s era YT, chaim.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Literally, if your homosexual God exists why do bad things happen? He's supreme right, all good? All merciful? You've all spent basically ten years on this board being mindbroken by this question because it completely destroys your philosophy.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          God first made us perfect but then we ate an apple or something

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a theist, and I'm not a fan. It's basically a "God of the Gaps" situation, you're digging a potential hole for yourself that's unnecessary.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    To the atheists, you do know that undesigned universes are presupposed as an alternative when the it's argued that the universe is designed right?
    No way anybody can be this moronic, no way.

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The atheist response is "cool, who cares, your faith in a prime mover is irrelevant, and you'll never have any evidence for it, and you can still be scientifically well-educated, but you'll lose any secular audience if you use goofy holy books to interpret data instead of the other way around."

    It doesn't matter if you believe in a god or other theistic/deistic nonsense. Use science and work your way backwards because your moronic religious scripts were painfully obviously written by uninspired human beings with uninspired human motivations.

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ok so I finally decided to search up a definition of what 'intelligent design' was supposed to be and it's fricking crazy
    >Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that features such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise through natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God). They reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset
    >therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions
    Are you kidding me?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Smart Christians who are doing ID arguments will move away from this, and towards something that is more like fine-tuning arguments.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Uhh it's the exact same thing anon.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          My take on it:

          Low-tier ID arguments could look like this: Human biology complicated, a must have made it. Like actually sculpted it, cell by cell.
          (which would run into problems if you have a good evidenced naturalistic theory of how the human body came about, like abiogenesis, evolution, etc)

          Can turn it into a fine-tuning argument instead, if you say God fine-tuned the initial physical parameters of the universe, such that it would eventually cause the human body billion years down the line

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            a God* must have,
            god I'm struggling with my posts today, brain malfunction from the virus

            >That's a very stupid way to put
            I think you are running a very stupid argument. I can't fix it.

            By presuppose I God, I mean presuppose that God has certain desires, like 'creating a universe where order doesn't arise spontaneously'

            If you don't make presuppositions about what God would want, or not want to do, you're not going to get any predictions.
            You cannot have evidence for that kind of theism. You need to assert/presuppose/whatever that God has certain kinds of desire.
            Basically what you are doing in the latter part of the post.

            laws -> therefore, God
            Ok. But why would an atheist ever grant this premise?
            This is not a good argument.

            You seriously think if we discovered some thingy where order naturally increased. (Like a perpetual motion engine?)
            It would make theists turn atheist? No way.

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Since you can't possibility be that moronic, are you saying that universe couldn't have been designed because.. there is only one universe?
    Well that's even more moronic. So what is it atheists? What are you trying to say here?

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The universe couldn't have been designed because there is only one universe.

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nowadays it's evolution.
    I don't know what argument was had by people who were SECULAR in olden times.
    I guess the best argument would be how God made us in his image. But, if we were horses, would we not suppose that he looked like us?

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who desiged the israelite in the sky?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, but seriously, this is a proper objection.
      Theists uses design and fine-tuning arguments, because they demand an explanation for why things are this way, instead of another way.
      Then explain it by saying God has a desire/nature to cause the data we happen to observe.

      But, then they suddenly have zero interest in an explanation for why God's nature is one way, instead of another.
      Like, did super-God design God's nature?

      It's a shit argument. It doesn't explain anything, it just kicks the can.
      I got no idea why theists are still peddling it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >But, then they suddenly have zero interest in an explanation for why God's nature is one way, instead of another.
        Contingent things need explanation because they are subject to change. The universe is subject to change. So it is contingent. So it needs an explanation.
        Incontingent things need no explanation because they are not subject to change. God is incontingent. So he needs no explanation.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          lmfao
          That's not how it works.

          Clearly the arguments have something to do with probabilities, perceived likelihoods.
          That without a god, it seems very, very, very unlikely that things are the way they are, instead of another way. That's what needs an explanation, right?
          I don't think this is solved, simply by asserting that the explanation, has not further explanation, IE; is necessary/incontigent.

          Would you ever accept the same move from a naturalist?
          "the universe just is the way it is, because of the necessary initial natural state of reality"
          You wouldn't
          I'm the same, with the God-explanation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That without a god, it seems very, very, very unlikely that things are the way they are, instead of another way. That's what needs an explanation, right?
            No.
            >"the universe just is the way it is, because of the necessary initial natural state of reality"
            No. And I explained why in the exact post you're replying to. Universe is subject to change. Hence contingent. Hence requiring an explanation.
            You didn't even read my post before replying.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look I read your post, that's why I said first initial state of natural reality, instead of universe. Trying to make a distinction here.
            I get that people are very used to thinking about the universe as a contingent thing.

            You don't get to just assert, that only God is OK as a necessary initial state of reality.
            (if that's the case, you really are running a presuppositional argument)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I get that people are very used to thinking about the universe as a contingent thing.
            Because every single observation proves its contingency. If you want to define the universe as something else, something never observed, something nobody else calls the universe, go ahead. But then you're not making an argument really, you're just redefining the prime mover to a word that is already taken - universe.

            >You don't get to just assert, that only God is OK as a necessary initial state of reality.
            You do if it's the prime mover. Which God is by definition.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not supposed to be the universe..
            I'm just talking about a necessary first domino, that isn't God, while being as theoretically uncommitted as possible.

            Keep in mind this was an example of a bad explanation, that I don't expect you to accept.
            At this point my explanation, it's basically God minus a mind.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Incontingent things need no explanation because they are not subject to change. God is incontingent. So he needs no explanation.
          A basic examination of israeli mythology demonstrates that this isn't the case. Yahweh is absolutely subject to change.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then I recommend not stopping with a basic examination and actually diving deeper i.e. to the theologians who over and over state that YHWH is without change and that the Bible describes it so for our limited understanding only.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A basic examination of israeli mythology demonstrates that this isn't the case.
            What israelite mythology, the bible was authored by Greeks.

  30. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Since you people just can’t get it through your head that all secular people aren’t atheists I’m just gonna move past it.

    I don’t know anon, maybe this is an intelligently designed realm, do I think that entity is one of the mythological deities from ancient folklore? No, grow up.
    If you’re saying evolution isn’t true you’re just not intelligent, and are quite plausibly below average

  31. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What do you mean by intelligent design? If you mean some God guided our evolution I cant disprove that, though it isn't science. If you mean a God designed as in or close to our present form and put us here that has been thoroughly debunked.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Evolution has to be guided.
      Selection occurs as a reaction to the environment.
      But the mutation occurring in response are hardly random.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Evolution has to be guided.
        Guided by what?
        >Selection occurs as a reaction to the environment.
        Yes
        >But the mutation occurring in response are hardly random.
        The mutations usually do not occur in response, rather the ones that survive do so because the environment selects for them.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Guided by what?
          Whatever intelligent entity created this highly ordered universe in which we currently reside.
          > The mutations usually do not occur in response, rather the ones that survive do so because the environment selects for them.
          But they do.
          Beneficial mutation to the current environment a creature exist on do seem to appear in response to the environment and are than hard selected for.
          It's why humans physical shape remained largely consistent throughout such a long period of time, we simply never truly needed any major mutation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't there a non-god explanation for how this works, about filling open niches or something like that

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Guided by what?
            Whatever intelligent entity created this highly ordered universe in which we currently reside.
            > The mutations usually do not occur in response, rather the ones that survive do so because the environment selects for them.
            But they do.
            Beneficial mutation to the current environment a creature exist on do seem to appear in response to the environment and are than hard selected for.
            It's why humans physical shape remained largely consistent throughout such a long period of time, we simply never truly needed any major mutation.

            Even if there wasn't why the heck would "God did it" be a better explanation than "unknown natural explanation"?
            This is a classic God of the gaps argument.
            Unless you meant to say that a natural explanation CANNOT explain it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"unknown natural explanation"
            Because there is no natural explanation for the existence of such a highly ordered universe, aside from some intelligent entity creating it for whatever reason.
            While this may not be relevant, it has to be said, I have personally witnessed the meta physical nature of the human spirit (through astral-projection), this alone drove me away from the lies of the religion of athiesm and got me into religion.
            Almost every culture in existence seems to have a concept of a metaphysical human soul, which suggests that such an experience is universal.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the mutation occurring in response are hardly random.
        I mean, you're right.
        Mutations occur through transcription errors, so you will not get totally randomized code.
        You'll get duplication, then deletion, etc

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      If order doesn't arises spontaneously in this universe, -> then God

  32. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No atheist could ever hope to explain the assumptions that the finite comes from the finite, and that matter is moved and preceded by nothing. These are just pseudo-dogmas adopted as axiomatic. That's why rational arguments for God are useless on them: they're too biased against them to accept them, even if they can't refute them. God's existence is obvious, if they were interested in accepting the obvious, they wouldn't be atheists.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >No atheist could ever hope to explain the assumptions that the finite comes from the finite, and that matter is moved and preceded by nothing
      Dude wtf are you talking about.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dogma bad

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's because the promoters of athiest (the like of the pedo israelite epstein) are not arguing in good faith, they seek to promote the religion of athiesm in gentile society as a way of weakining it, look at the athiest VS religious birthrates.
      You can very clearly see why the israelite want Whites to adopt this religion.

  33. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >arguing with dogmatic atheists
    What a collossal waste of time. If atheists WERE truth-seekers, they would study NDEs and realize that there actually is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. But dogmatic atheists petulantly refuse to study NDEs. Yet, NDEs are irrefutable proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so undeniably real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

    As this NDEr described their NDE:

    >"I saw how life never ends. I remembered the process of reincarnation is endless, wonderful and truly eternal. I witnessed my own spiritual evolution and saw that I had existed long before this present incarnation (where I am now a male human). For me, watching the process of living life, after life, after life unfold, was mind-blowing! I undeniably observed that I had lived an innumerable amount of lives. My NDE clearly showed me that these bodies (we now inhabit) are not the first and only time we have existed! I saw that our soul and spirit is ancient! I also observed that there is no such thing as death."

    And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

    So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

    >muh brain chemistry

    Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

    >muh DMT causes it

    Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You should look into out of body experiences and astral projection.
      I have managed to induce an astral projection session myself, it is very real.
      I believe in God, but I don't know which religion is true though.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      shut the frick up, Jens, I'm not reading your gay book

  34. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only compelling intelligent design argument is fine tuning. All stages of life have plausible/observed mechanisms for their origin. Scientists estimate there are 10^25 planets in the universe, its not weird one led to life.

    >Fine-tuning
    I think the weak anthropic principle does a fine job refuting the fine-tuning argument. This isn't making the argument that there have been many failed/sterile universes and we simply got lucky. It is claiming that we lack the ability to determine or even put a probability on whether this is the only universe. The fine tuning argument says that it is extraordinary that our universe has the conditions for life. The anthropic principle says we can't claim whether it is extraordinary or not.

    The other issue with the fine tuning argument is that noone is really sure just what the range of parameters are that could create a universe capable of life. Regardless of the success of the anthropic principle the fine-tuning problem is more of an open question than a proof of a creator.

  35. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of atheists often ask "then who designed God?".
    The problem with the question is that it presupposes an infinite regress, that time moves backwards, that the present is creating the past when in fact it's the other way around.
    So there had to be an eternal designer, which definitely cannot be the universe, as it is a non-being.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God must be real because [series of linguistic quirks]
      welp, I'm convinced.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you think it matters whether you are convinced or not in an argument? Nobody cares.
        Your opinions means jack squat.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      An uncaused cause makes as much logical sense as an infinite regress, if not even less.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Scientists have already proven theirs objects in space older than the universe.
      Theoretically in a previous universe something intelligent could have survived it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Scientists have already proven [there's] objects in space older than the universe.
        No they haven't

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          They have
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            cyclic cosmology is not a new idea, and I'm happy that its starting to gain traction amongst the modern science-philosopher movement, but nobody has ever found an object older than the universe. Stop misrepresenting data.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Read the article you just posted. It was measured to be 14.27 billion years with a a mrgin of error. This margin of error puts it within the 13.8 billion year age of he universe. Popsci news articles then ran with the older number because they knew it would fool morons like you who can't read.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230222115828.htm

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Each of the candidate galaxies may have existed at the dawn of the universe roughly 500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang, or more than 13 billion years ago.
            Stop. Misrepresenting. Data.

            People like you are why some people think modern science is a joke. Have critical thinking skills please.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            ffs you have dunning kruger kek

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's just the wiki for the theory which isn't widely accepted, and all the claimed observable evidence listed in the wiki is disputed

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thats because Penrose has a lot of butthurt detractors like jealous scientists and wiki editors that fill his articles with bullshit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            kek why would you post the wiki then. sounds like cope.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            to show the general concept of Hawking points. If you read down the page after all the seething, its still a valid point

            Read the article you just posted. It was measured to be 14.27 billion years with a a mrgin of error. This margin of error puts it within the 13.8 billion year age of he universe. Popsci news articles then ran with the older number because they knew it would fool morons like you who can't read.

            Again you did the same thing you did in the wiki article you didnt read the end, where the age of the universe was refined to be under 14.27 billion years.
            You are an idiot you just cherry pick what you want to hear.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >where the age of the universe was refined to be under 14.27 billion years.
            1.) No it wasn't
            2.) If it was, this implies that none of those objects found were "older than the universe" you dumbass.

            ffs you have dunning kruger kek

            Anyone who uses that phrase is low IQ.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are just not very bright and good at speed reading
            >Far from being 13.8 billion years old, as estimated by the European Planck space telescope's detailed measurements of cosmic radiation in 2013, the universe may be as young as 11.4 billion years. If that is, indeed, the case, then Methuselah is one again older than the universe. The plot, indeed, thickens, but how accurate are these re-estimates proving to be?

            Also you miss the point about galaxies being too large at that point in time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I like Roger Penrose and I'm a hugr champion of his ideas, but you misrepresenting data as evidence is no doing him any favors. The universe is 13-14 billion years old within a margin of error, this isn't debatable, we are certain that the universe at the very least, in its current rendition, has a finite, measurable age. You're making it seem like Penrose denies the Big Bang, which is moronic. Thats not what Cyclic Cosmology is about.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh shut up you are just mad, they are his claims, his claim is that evaporated black holes from the previous universe can be seen in the sky.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick does that have to do with whether or not "God" exists or not?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Here's a summary of the atheist response ITT.
      >Who designed God?
      Failed.
      >The universe couldn't be designed because there is only one universe.
      moronic.
      >The universe isn't intelligently designed.
      Pigheaded.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It sounds like you are using the word "pigheaded" to mean "my interlocutor doesn't agree with me even though I presented arguments which convinced me".

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Here's the atheists response to the intelligent design argument.
          It doesn't answer the question why the shots missed in anyway.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You mean in terms of fundamental constants?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What now?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What "what now"? I'm asking you whether you're talking about finetuning in terms of fundamental constants or something else.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Can you explain how the universe is i telligently designed?
        Also
        >muh infinite regress
        Why is that a ptoblem?

  36. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the atheist response to the intelligent design argument?
    There's no evidence of intelligent design, so why does it need a real "response"?

  37. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    you learn biology and discover all the not intelligent design.

  38. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    i love posting actual scientists like Penrose because it makes atheists so mad. Another favourite of mine is Brian Cox.
    Who supports the one Earth theory.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Legitimate question, are you schizophrenic? You seem to have some weird paranoid victim complex about Penroses work. Penrose himself isn't even religious. the scary atheist boogeyman isn't after you. Take your meds please.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        What the frick does that have to do with whether or not "God" exists or not?

        im talking to actual morons. God damn do i hate internet atheists.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          "I was wrong"
          There, thats all you have to say

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'm not wrong just because you are an idiot

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're not smart, intelligent people don't gish-gallop wikipedia text dumps of misrepresented data to support their claims and then form a victim complex when called out. Thats not what an intelligent person does.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are just an idiot that cherry picks criticisms ojt of articles and doesn't read the whole thing embarrassing himself.
            You are the typical msm addict, addicted to fact checking.

  39. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the apologist's weakest argument

  40. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can be an atheist and believe in Intelligent Design.

  41. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Propose a falsifiable hypothesis. You can’t and won’t.

  42. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know what the atheists are trying to say here with their passive aggressive language but it's possible that the universe isn't intelligently designed in the same way it's possible that a tornado could build a house.
    And that's being generous.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cont.
      Now of course you could still say that it's still a possibility, but it's moronic.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't follow in any way

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Nuh Uh.
        Next!

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          No; you can't just say "the universe is clearly designed" and pretend you made an argument

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe is clearly designed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe is clearly not designed

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The level of moronation it takes to say that automatically disqualifies you from any further argument.
            Your atheism isn't even worth attacking anymore to the theist you know? It's just pigheadedness at this point.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But you are wrong

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Daily reminder that Christians score lower on intelligence tests in part because they don’t know when to or don’t know how to stop using intuition and start using analytical thought when exploring logical questions

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe is clearly not designed

            It is unclear if the universe is designed, or how we could distinguish a designed universe from a randomly generated one.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the point; it's a completely unfalsifiable claim

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            in what way is the universe clearly designed

  43. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >its another episode of religious larper plays word games to cover the fact he has no idea what he is talking about

  44. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I guess, I should rephrase it.
    It's possible that the universe isn't intelligently designed in the same way it's possible that a house could be built by a tornado.

  45. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think intelligent design is the weakest argument for God personally, but probably one of the best arguments for people in general. It's just "something being complex and not well understood = designed", God of the gaps type argument.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The main problem with it is if you believe in intelligent design, there's no counter example to refute your view since every example of complexity is just more evidence of a creator, so it's tautological.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Or the "the universe couldn't have been designed because there is only one universe" argument?
        It's moronic.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God of the gaps
      When will I stop hearing this oxymoron?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        When people will stop using that argument

  46. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    parsimony

    For an Intelligent Watchmaker you'd need 2 IBE-arguments:
    1. Magical telos-schematics in a platonic world of ideas.
    2. Abiogenesis, independently for each species.

    For darwinism, you need just 1 IBE-argument:
    1. Darwinian Tree of Life through passive environmental filtration, - as responsible both for seeing telos/adaptations and for speciation.

    The Intelligent Watchmaker argument worked against pre-darwinian atheists, because a "telos" sounds more sensible that "it's just randomness, bro".
    But Darwin didn't refute telos, he naturalized it, and provided an exact mechanism how.

    What your kind keeps shrieking about instead, is just butthurt from disenchantment.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The theory of evolution is modern globohomosexual science.

      ?si=R9bENZesBH-3GMDJ
      >It is our contention that if random is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws. -Eden Murray.
      Kek.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the randomness postulate is highly implausible
        I repeat: it was pre-darwinian defence that postulated randomness.
        Darwin *naturalized* telos. Hence, all the rhetoric that was supposed to refute randomness (aristotelean telos), now stands in its defence. We have a ratchet effect mechanism now.

        But you have too low an IQ to understand what was said to you, right?

        >Kek
        To simplify for you, Black person:

        1.
        Aristotle vs pre-darwinian defence:
        A: There is a telos. The magical schematic forces instances to emerge. They are less perfect than their ideal form, hence some are defective.
        B: Nooo, you lie! It's just accidentally happens!

        2. Aristotle vs Darwin:
        A: There is a telos.
        B: Yes, but it emerges FROM an average of instances. Like a mirage. Hence, panda's paws are always so shit.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the randomness postulate is highly implausible
        I repeat: it was pre-darwinian defence that postulated randomness.
        Darwin *naturalized* telos. Hence, all the rhetoric that was supposed to refute randomness (aristotelean telos), now stands in its defence. We have a ratchet effect mechanism now.

        But you have too low an IQ to understand what was said to you, right?

        >Kek
        To simplify for you, Black person:

        1.
        Aristotle vs pre-darwinian defence:
        A: There is a telos. The magical schematic forces instances to emerge. They are less perfect than their ideal form, hence some are defective.
        B: Nooo, you lie! It's just accidentally happens!

        2. Aristotle vs Darwin:
        A: There is a telos.
        B: Yes, but it emerges FROM an average of instances. Like a mirage. Hence, panda's paws are always so shit.

        Lot of leaps man, the theory of evolution is granted LOTS of leaps and it still isn't working.
        It's running off of pure globohomosexual energy.

        Offspring inherit genes from their parents and mutations occur during meiosis. Some genes are better for survival and reproduction than others.
        This causes change in population genetics over time, it’s not complicated.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Offspring inherit genes from their parents
          microevolution vs macroevolution
          active vs passive evolutionary trends, constrain-driven trends
          selection vs drift
          saltational speciation, macromutation

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those certainly are biology terms, good job anon. Does not change that population genetics change over time due to inheritance of genes and mutations

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >microevolution vs macroevolution
            There's no real distinction or boundary between these whatsoever, and nobody but moronic Christians even use those terms anymore for that reason.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no real distinction
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Difference_from_macroevolution
            "Macroevolution is guided by sorting of interspecific variation ("species selection"[2]), as opposed to sorting of intraspecific variation in microevolution"

            >and nobody but moronic Christians even use those terms anymore
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecific_competition#Interspecific_competition_in_macroevolution
            "Darwin assumed that interspecific competition limits the number of species on Earth"
            "interspecific competition also promotes niche differentiation and thus speciation and diversification."

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
            "emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Macroevolution is guided by sorting of interspecific variation ("species selection"[2]), as opposed to sorting of intraspecific variation in microevolution"
            Turns out species is shorthand and basically means nothing, because taxonomy was largely finished before we mapped the genome of all organisms. It’s all evolution anon, they’re the same exact process and even that Wikipedia page you cited says this.
            Also did you cite Darwin’s ideas instead of modern biology?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >taxonomy was largely finished
            evolutionary taxonomy vs phenetics, vs cladistics (or how to keep completely rehashing the whole taxonomy)
            phylogeny vs pattern cladistics
            asexual reproduction (bacteria, etc.) vs species definition problem
            horizontal gene transfer

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Turns out species is shorthand
            emergence, Black person.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(Conway%27s_Game_of_Life)

            >Turns out species is shorthand and basically means nothing
            >before we mapped the genome of all organisms

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gene/#PlurGeneConcContBiol
            "The plurality of gene concepts in contemporary biology"

            Give a complete thought or don’t bother posting.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Turns out species is shorthand
            emergence, Black person.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(Conway%27s_Game_of_Life)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Turns out species is shorthand and basically means nothing
            >before we mapped the genome of all organisms

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gene/#PlurGeneConcContBiol
            "The plurality of gene concepts in contemporary biology"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"Macroevolution is guided by sorting of interspecific variation ("species selection"[2]), as opposed to sorting of intraspecific variation in microevolution"
            There's no such thing as a "species". They're categories that humans make up and impose onto the natural variation seen in nature for ease of categorization and understanding. In either case, the phenomenon occurring is changes in allele and gene frequencies over successive generations due to the effects of mutations, genetic drift, natural selection, etc. There is no difference in mechanism at all, nor in effects.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no such thing as a "species". They're categories that humans make up and impose onto the natural variation seen in nature for ease of categorization
            There's no such thing as a "gene"

            >Turns out species is shorthand and basically means nothing
            >before we mapped the genome of all organisms

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gene/#PlurGeneConcContBiol
            "The plurality of gene concepts in contemporary biology"

            either. They're categories that humans make up and impose onto the natural variation seen in nature for ease of categorization

            "The instrumental gene (as a unit that correlates with a phenotypic difference, segregates in a Mendelian manner, and is subject to recombination events) can remain indeterminate regarding DNA-sequence and need not correspond to a gene that has an identifiable product. In many cases one of the genetic variants consists in the absence or lack of a function of a gene product and there are many ways in which a change in DNA can result in the lack of a resource (Moss 2003: Ch. 1). The instrumental gene can correspond to elements of various size, including whole chromosome aberrations, and they might be located in coding regions as much as in regulatory elements or even insulator regions that only function to separate other functional elements, as long as a difference in the sequence is correlated with a phenotypic effect"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no such thing as a "gene"
            Wrong. Genes are identifiable molecules.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Wrong
            "Molecular biology is not interested merely in the physical characterization of molecules; it aims to assign biological roles to molecules, that is, functions in highly specialized, directively organized systems (Waters 2000). However, it becomes increasingly questionable if molecules identified as developmental resources or functional parts of cellular mechanisms can be identified in a coherent manner as genes or gene products. The classical molecular gene concept has been undermined by the accumulation of insights about the complexities of regulation and post-transcriptional processing of RNA (see §§1.4–1.5; Fogle 2000; Portin 2002). A more flexible gene concept has since emerged, which analysts have dubbed the “post-genomic gene” (Griffiths & Stotz 2006)."

            "This has created a situation in which no single or simple set of criteria can be formulated for when a sequence of DNA counts as a gene. While the classical molecular gene seemed to reestablish a one-one relation of genes and phenotypes on the molecular level (one gene – one polypeptide), the processes just mentioned can result in a situation where one gene identified through an ORF gives rise to various gene products (molecular phenotypes). One can thus speak of “molecular pleiotropy” (Burian 2004). Additionally, a given product might be synthesized from various genes (ORFs). Accordingly, a given stretch of DNA can belong to several genes identified more broadly as set of template resources for a product. Furthermore, the nature of these processes implies that the molecular phenotype is not determined by the DNA sequence but depends on a distributed and context-dependent interaction of many cellular and, ultimately, extracellular factors. Hence one can also speak of “molecular epigenesis” in this respect (Burian 2004)."

  47. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buttblasted youtube jannies took down Greg Bahnsen's total annihilation of the theory of evolution. So have this one instead. https://youtu.be/UXVNJXu4R1c?si=kAbziNhpS0yVp_pw
    It was so ludicrious that some guy bursted out laughing.

  48. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lot of leaps man, the theory of evolution is granted LOTS of leaps and it still isn't working.
    It's running off of pure globohomosexual energy.

  49. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pLRogvJLPPg6Mrvg4/an-alien-god

  50. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Intelligently designed to what?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      For life? Obviously? What did you think it was?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ok, life cam occur naturally, why does it have to be a god who does it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >For life? Obviously?
        If the universe is designed for life, why is it so uninhabitable? The vast majority of space is occupied by cold gas and dust.

  51. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm agnostic. I do not exclude the possibility of a higher intelligence. But exactly why a semitic god with a specific set of rules partly a product of to the culture and environment of the people who revealed it is absolutely with no doubt the correct one? And why since the development of new methods to test and analyse various natural phenomenons we don't have anymore the privilege to witness miracles and magic? I mean, can't Allah just do a moonsplit again?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do a test if you have a year to spear. Bow down to God Almighty once a day for a year and just try to follow his rules as much as you can. I bet that by the first month you will already be having unexplainable experiences, dreams, visions and encounters that will convince you of God's existence.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christoids will talk like this and then barely follow any of the rules Jesus preaches, especially the loving everyone, helping the poor and sick and giving away all your money to the poor

  52. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do design Black folk justify this

    [...]

    did perfect God just mess up on dickskin?

  53. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Quantum mechanics destroys theists. If God is omniscient and omnipresent, he is observing everything everywhere, thus causing wavefunction collapse everywhere which is absurd. Plus, if he is supposed to know everything, he should know a particle's momentum and position at the same time, but we know he has to choose one, making omniscience incoherent.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >believes in quantum mechanics

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Quantum mechanics destroys theists.
      Qubits are resistant to entropy. Quantum world is the original God's intent, while our physical world is marred by Melkor's music theme.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      atheists tends to posit THE SCIENCE but whenever it is questioned, they always revert back to "we don't know, it is a progress". Why bring it up to begin with if you were going to eventually backtrack on it and ultimately say nothing?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Science has an immense burden of proof and theism has some lines of scripture and an "instinct" that god is real

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *