Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

Do things appear to be designed to you?

I am not saying design is proved, I am saying non design is not proved.

Therefore, there is no valid reason to assume either design or non design. And, since using design doesn't actually change the science of biology or the nature of biological organisms, and actually doesn't change any of the processes we observe, why not just use design instead of non design?

Who would it harm? What would it change if we didn't change anything, but substituted design as the underlying causal factor?

Actually, I would like it best if people spoke only fact, and the fact is that no one has a proof for design or non design. Both position are based on not scientific truths, but rather the opinions of design believers and non design believers.

I see bias in either position, so why not just eliminate the bias and just describe the process that we know, and just drop the "I know for a fact" from the equation.

The model works whether design/programming is as causal, or non design/non programmed is assumed as a proposition.

Did it ever occur to you that your "creationist design perspective" may be a bit biased because all your life all the complexity you've ever seen are man-made objects and technology that you know have been designed AFTER THE FACT?

After the fact of what? Observation? What can be observed through senses is confirmed by what?

This is where the rationalists come in to determine what truly establishes facts independent of senses.

Quote from killthesunshine:

That's it? Hundreds of pages of your nonsense boils down to no more proof than "things appear to be designed"?!

ROFL! :D

Did it ever occur to you that your "creationist design perspective" may be a bit biased because all your life all the complexity you've ever seen are man-made objects and technology that you know have been designed AFTER THE FACT?

Did it? :D
More...
 
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”(1) That’s right - zero!
 
You are making a likelihood argument. I would counter that lacking all of the necessary facts of the universe, whatever model is being used to generate "likelihood" is not to be trusted. If history is a judge, what is known as likelihood today will be the bird cage liner of the future.

The argument of design vs. non design is much simpler than that, if you boil it down logically to what can be known not in likelihood, but for a fact that remains true independent of the advancements of science.

Your argument is dependent on the view of selected scientists and their respective opinions, which is just a presentation of the opinions of those scientists...which is not presenting scientific fact.

Much easier to show that random ignorant chance theory is not a fact derived conclusion...it is the conclusion of ignorance.

"I don't know what causes it, so what causes it is unknown."

That is science? It is true that the cause is unknown, but to present a broad theory based on something unknown, and suggest that the theory is fact is mindless.

Quote from jem:

you guys are having an argument ignorant of the last 50 years of physics.


The August ‘97 issue of “Science” (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Here is an excerpt:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life—such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars—also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.


Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.




Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,

namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Penrose continues,

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
More...
 
Nonsense. That's just an opinion, I assure you it is not a fact.

Quote from jem:

Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”(1) That’s right - zero!
More...
 
and stu... telling me I was taking de duve out of context...

remember at the time you challenged the context of my quote, I told you that de duve was saying that all this could have gotten here by aliens seeding the earth.

I just did some more research on the de duve argument.

Do you realize that when the top researches say that there "may have been aliens who seeded the earth".... that is a paraphrase of an argument used by dna researchers to say... it could be God? But, they do not say God, because that would not be scientific.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Nonsense. That's just an opinion, I assure you it is not a fact.
More...

duh..... that is his opinion... you call that a response...

It is a nobel prize winners opinion in his field.

Are you proposing he is not basing his opinion on evidence?

That he and the others I have quoted -- all of a sudden have psychotic breaks with their fields of research and understanding once they offer an opinion you find challenging?


if his opinion it is not worthy of weight... explain why he, a noble prize winner is wrong.

if it is not based on science explain what it is based on or why it is not based on science?


Is it because you feeeeeeel he is wrong?
because you do not want him to be right?
because it conflicts with your preconceived ideas?
 
Quote from trendlover:

Stu is talking about viruses maybe?
More...
My apologies trendlover.
The word inanimate was not meant to be in there. I recall considering abiogenesis at the time I wrote and how the whole picture along with Evolution really does make a little more sense than an Invisible Designer Sky Pixie.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"Living organisms are different from inanimate objects because they a. react to environmental stimuli. b. exhibit massive complexity. c. possess molecules of deoxyribonucleic acid."

http://www.reference.com/topic/Living-Organisms-Are-Different-from-Inanimate-Objects-Because-They

"What is it ID'ers have against inanimate organisms that reproduce, mutate and are subject to natural selection simply showing the results of all that in designs and as a matter of fact?
Why wouldn't that evolutionary process involve its own determination in outcome of shape pattern and design?"

Inanimate organisms?

Having a bad day, are you?

Please give some examples of inanimate organisms. No dead things, please....only living things, as inanimate is defined as:

in·an·i·mate
   /ɪnˈænəmɪt/ Show Spelled[in-an-uh-mit] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not animate; lifeless.
More...

Talk about overkill .

You know, if that sentence could reproduce mutate and be subject to natural selection, I wouldn't even have had to remove the offending word. Subject to natural selection, it wouldn't have survived.

My bad. I didn't notice I had included it.

  • What is it ID'ers have against <strike>inanimate</strike> organisms that reproduce, mutate and are subject to natural selection simply showing the results of all that in designs and as a matter of fact?

It makes little difference as the question still stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top