Although, given the apparent vastness of the universe, the old cliche about a roomful of monkeys with typewriters and an infinite amount of time eventually churning out the entire works of Shakespeare... well, it has its merits.

I believe the idea behind the cliche is that a roomful of monkeys typing randomly at typewriters for all of eternity would by logical necessity type out every possible combination of letters (an infinite number of times, even). Somewhere in that vast soup of gibberish you would find the works of Shakespeare in perfect publishing order. You would also find Harry Potter written backwards, the Bible in Pig Latin, and the very post I am now writing--in Japanese, if you like.

The image is not meant to be taken seriously. The point, however, is.

I know very well what the point is and that it's meant to be taken seriously. But then so is the sociological experiment I proposed as well, despite your glib dismissal.

You did a very good job of acting immature, then. I'd give you an Oscar if I had the power. Because if you get the point, you also get that it has says nothing as to whether the work of Shakespeare was written by a playwright or monkeys. I think I have every right to dismiss a strawman when I see it, thank you very much.

There's more to go on like the fact that the universe didn't have an infinite number of times to be set up (which is why the infinite multiverse is embraced to give atheists a way out), and it's far more vast and complex then any playwright, but delving any deeper isn't really necessary when one can reasonably show that the arguement is ridiculous after a moments consideration.

When one can set up a strawman scarecrow like the one you just used? Oh, I agree. It's a very logical way to avoid delving into an argument. Make it look ridiculous by trying to make it say something it doesn't. You must be the highlight of your debate team, sir.

I believe the original point of this thread cited the precarious balance required for such a livable environment as ours as evidence for a designer. The reason the monkeys-on-typewriters image applies is because of the vast amount of time that seems to have passed (unless you're arguing from a two-thousand-year minimum timeframe and looking at that as fact, in which case, we can't really claim to be on the right page here) and more importantly, the vast amount of space.

Let me expand:

The universe. Big, right? Seems to be. How many planets? Quite a few, I would imagine. Seems an overlarge construct just to serve as a pretty ceiling for us young earthers, anyway. We can discount the other planets of our own solar system for the purpose of this point--given the "balance" aspect, those other planets would seem to have just been rendered S.O.L. in terms of livability. Earth was in the right place at the right time and so it is what it is. Or was made that way, if you prefer. The point being:

Given the apparent number of planets in the universe and the time that very much seems to have passed, what are the odds that such a precarious balance *wouldn't* occur *somewhere?* I doubt it hasn't occured somewhere else, too, but let's not argue about extraterrestrials--that's beside the point. Even if the universe isn't infinite, there's an aweful lot of space and there looks to be an aweful lot of time for it to have developed... or been built... or fallen together by accident... whatever.

The monkeys-on-typewriters image admittedly only really works when there's an infinite amount of time to work with--or an infinite amount of space, but I'm not so sure we even have that, so it comes to the same. I never called that an end-all argument to begin with, it was just a support illustration. I never said "It stands like a wall of iron, foo's!" I just said it had its merits, given the apparent vastness of the universe. This is my main point. The odds of it happening in any given location would be astronomically low, but the odds of it not happening at all anywhere would, unless I miss my math, be even lower than that. In the same way, probably not. But in some way, yeah.

Once one has hypothesized that it may indeed have happened somewhere simply out of high probability of happening somewhere, one should further realize that there's no point in asking "why here?" because if it didn't happen here but happened somewhere else, our consciousness in whatever form would just be somewhere else asking the same question. The only answer to the question of "why here?" is "Because we're here to ask that question." As for "Why the way it has?" (i.e. Why the current blend of plants, animals, humans, etc.), that brings up the question of "Why not?" If it could just as easily have happened another way, it could just as easily have happened this way. There's no point asking that question, as we'd still be asking that question if we were rolling around on natural wheels and carrying things with elephant trunks instead of arms.

Am I saying that I'm right, and you're wrong? Not exactly, no. I'm just saying the argument from design isn't enough to make a designer seem more credible than non-design. If the world looks to complex to have come about by unguided events, the universe looks too big and old for that not to have eventually happened anyway.

You just don't want to wind up in a one way ticket to a padded room.

I just don't refuse to acknowledge that the point isn't that monkeys actually wrote Shakespeare, but that they could, if the proper conditions (infinite time, enough typewriters, etc.) were provided. Asking people if they know what monkeys wrote the plays we have probably would land me in the nuthouse, but it would also be way beside the point of the argument. Which is what I was saying.

Your quote regarding quibbles over wastepaper baskets and such was also beside the point.

Actually the argument from design is quite credible over non-design, as is shown by the various other fields that look for design to show intelligence. Something you have pointedly ignored when brought up. I'm afraid that Oscar award rightly belongs to you good sir.

Actually, I didn't intentionally ignore it. I must have forgotten to respond to it or maybe I simply missed it.

Those fields you mention look for signs of design beyond a certain bar, beneath which anything is dismissed as undesigned for their present purposes. The argument from design claims that the entire universe is designed and attempts to argue thus by claiming that it all looks complex and intricate enough to be designed.

So where's the bar on that one? If the entire universe shows "signs of design," right down to the atoms in the air, then just about the only thing that doesn't show these alleged "signs of design" would be the vaccuum of space. I'm curious--how can one claim there are "signs of design" in anything when we have no idea what something that doesn't seem designed would look like, since there is nothing that doesn't show signs of design? Further, if there are things that don't show signs of design, are they actually undesigned? If they are, what does that say for a universal creator of all?

However while you address that the metaphor is largely about probability the math has always shown that that their simply isn't enough time to render it possible. Even for allowing the age of the universe to be billions of years old the calculated time it would take has been shown to either not be enough, or make it more likely that nothing would happen. And this is the flaw in the argument that an outcome would happen. With a mindless force pushing nothing says an outcome of you and I being able to have this chat need ever occur anywhere.

For one thing, I'd like to mention that we don't know how old the universe is. We know that there appears to be a kind of starting point, but as to whether there was anything before that starting point, I don't think there's even any way of telling. We can't even experiment to see what possible cycle or process or incident may have occured. We can only theorize and speculate, both of which strike my inner cynic as pointless and vain efforts, but which we do all the same. We know (or think we know, and it comes to the same thing, right?) that there can't have been an infinite time between now and this "starting point" (let's just call it the zero hour--maybe the beginning of time, maybe more like the transition between B.C. and A.D.), but we don't in fact know that there wasn't an infinite amount of time. Even if the universe winds down, we don't know there's no way it might get wound up again.

Secondly, my main thrust was not quite the time allotted (which is quite a bit more than "billions"--"billions" is more applicable to the time between us and the dinosaurs, at least in science's view), but the time alloted in combination with the apparent vastness of the setting involved. The odds of it happening in a set area are quite low; the odds of it happening aren't so low. It's something like flipping a trillion coins three times each and seeing how many land on their edge. That's an overtly simplistic illustration, but it's more or less the principle.

Third, the word "possible" is the wrong word. Even if the odds are astronomically low, it's "possible." What you mean is "probable."

And though you dismiss it as beside the point the notion of it happening somewhere else (ET) does go to the heart of the matter. The metaphor calls for numerous attempts with numerous 'failures', 'successes', and 'near successes'. That's why scientist's continue on in the Seti project (looking for design in the meantime because that would be taken as evidence for the obvious), because such an argument makes other forms of life abound in the universe like fish in the ocean.

No, it doesn't. First of all, for the balance required a planet would have to be in a correct location, and for that it has to be a certain approximate distance and a certain approximate closeness to its sun. That puts quite a bit of distance between any potential sites of promise. Even if there were another livable planet on the next nearest possible location, the distance involved would keep us and them far away from each other for quite some time. Even if there were a livable planet there, the odds of it being even as developed as we were during the Stone Age aren't particularly high--that anything might be capable of "design" yet or even ever is a question in and of itself. Third, the argument does not claim anything more than that the odds of it happening at least once in at least one location are high, or at least, high enough.

 

Yet where are they? With the lack of finding anyone else, all atheists can do is have faith that they'll be discovered eventually.

I have faith that I'll die long before we have sufficient space travel technology to get anything out far enough to find out. As a matter of interest, exactly how far can we look, or otherwise send some machine to look for us?

I also doubt that we'll find "anyone" so much as "anything." Nothing about a sufficiently livable planet dictates the current existence of intelligent life. Advanced life, perhaps, but not necessarily intelligent life.

Quote

Those fields you mention look for signs of design beyond a certain bar, beneath which anything is dismissed as undesigned for their present purposes. The argument from design claims that the entire universe is designed and attempts to argue thus by claiming that it all looks complex and intricate enough to be designed.

You fail to see the gaping hole to the 'monkeys-on-typewriters' arguement and what you've admitted to in your statements below. Your stance is that there is no point in asking why there is signs of design in the natural world, because due to probability it would eventually happen somewhere. That may be well and good when simply considering the signs of design when the field is narrowed to just our planet, but you have noted that the arguement from design shows signs of design in the entire universe. If the 'monkeys-on-typewriters' truly worked there'd be more signs of chaotic undesign amoungst the rarity of design (as it relates to those wastebaskets). In fact such would be the rarity of design that the distinction between the two would be more clear then you have argued. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not asking for it both ways. Incidentally, how many well-balanced life-supporting planets do we know of, and how many "throw-away" planets? I can think of at least one of the former and eight of the latter. And we haven't found any sign of any more of the former, so far. There's a lot of relatively "undesigned" planets out there. Lots of filler for the trash cans.

And what I was saying in that quote had nothing to do with probability. It was simple common sense. If there's no way to tell if something is not "quality A," then how do you say that something is in fact "A?" If there is in fact nothing that is not "A," then how can you conclude that any such quality as "A" even exists outside of your own speculative mind? Now, if the entire universe and everything in it shows "signs of design," then nothing does not show signs of design. How, then, do we even know what "signs of design" look like in the first place, having never seen or experienced anything that didn't show them? Do these so-called signs of design actually signify design, or do we just think they do?

Nonsense. The mere fact that even skeptics admit that it at least appears designed shows the capacity to make the distinction.

The capacity to imagine the distinction, if nothing else. It's to be expected when you consider how much less complicated things appear when they're not under a microscope. We look at small things and marvel at how "complex" they are, but it's perception. We're really just surprised to see more there than our naked eyes could tell us.   

Basicly it always amount to looking for signs of complexity and functionality no matter what 'level' you're looking at. And as stated above the mere fact of abundance with the signs of design throws out the 'monkeys-on-typewriters' arguement due to the fact that the analogy would have non-design far more abundant than design. But as the opposite is the case there is only one reasonable conclusion.

And what would "non-design" look like? Tell me that much. What would such a universe necessarily look like? What is this "non-design" that would supposedly be so abundant?

Sure there is. It's simply a matter of logical deduction and it's one I've used multiple times on this very forum. If matter, time, and space were created by a singularity then it stands to reason that they could not have exsisted before they were created. Nor is it logically possible for them to create themselves as 'out of nothing, nothing comes' is the logical dictum. Matter could not create matter when no-matter exsisted. As such what came before matter, time and space, must logically be immaterial and beyond space and time. Not so coincidently these characteristics are how the Biblical God is described as.

Is it logically possible for a universe to wind down, spend itself, and then eventually be revitalized, or revitalize itself? This isn't a matter of whether mass could pop into existence. It's the question of whether it necessarily had to in the first place.

Fortunately the scientific method is not the only way to know things.

Unfortunately it's one of the less shifty-eyed ways.

See above on how this statement and your admittance of signs of design being in abundance conflict.

I never admitted signs of design, so stop putting thoughts into my thoughts. I said that if it's claimed the whole universe and all things therein show signs of design, that claim rules out signs of undesign, and thus kills itself because it rules out any way of recognizing what "design" looks like in the first place.

Hate to be nit-picky on this issue, but no. There is indeed a mathamatical line where it is considered 'impossible'. You can feel free to take the 'there's still that 1 chance' position if you like, but you'll understand if such an arguement sounds childish to others.

I'm not going to take that argument as a point in my favor, but something that can happen, can happen. There's no use denying that, either. That mathematically line is simply a place where bets become practically suicidal. And that's fine by me. But the wording was still not quite right.

Well this is the point where it starts quibbling on what form 'life' can take. Such conditions are needed for carbon based life, but what about silicon or any other form of life totally alien from our own? As evolution has been constantly advocated as a type of deus ex machina for biology where the life is shaped by the environment, any form of environment short of the vaccum of space (and problably even that) should be able to support life under such a system, but we keep turning up empty.

Possibly because we haven't encounted another possible form of life in the environment it would require. I wouldn't claim that carbon-based life is the only possible form of life, but unknown kinds of life would require unknown environments. It's true that such environments might be able to support life in some form, but that form must come to be in that environment in the first place. As we don't know how many possible forms may exist or what environments they would require--I'd even allow for a form of life based on an element or substance we have no experience with or even access to--it's not right to assume that every or even most environments in most locations would have such a high probability of supporting a kind of life.

Hehe. This just goes to show how such position basicly becomes unfalsifiable. If one looked at the history of such a topic they would quickly see that mankind thought they'd find signs of life on the moon, then we got to the moon and found nothing. Then we thought there'd be signs on Mars, then we got to Mars and found nothing. Etc. Etc. But this just goes back to the issue of multiple attempts. People kept expecting for life to abound, but at the lack of finding anything, the position has had to gone through numerous revisions.

Those "multiple attempts" haven't even scratched the surface of the snowglobe. How can you expect us to have reached the snow yet?

Quote from: Trent on May 08, 2008, 01:09:04 AM

I'm not asking for it both ways. Incidentally, how many well-balanced life-supporting planets do we know of, and how many "throw-away" planets? I can think of at least one of the former and eight of the latter. And we haven't found any sign of any more of the former, so far. There's a lot of relatively "undesigned" planets out there. Lots of filler for the trash cans.

You apparently are as you seem to be going back and forth with this issue. First you say 'we can't tell the distinction if it's all evidence of design', now you're noting a lot of 'undesigned' planets, and in a question below you're contradicting yourself again by asking what undesign looks like while noting it yourself in this statement. Try to slow that pendulum down a little would you?

It wouldn't kill you to consider the context of the statement for a moment before you try to accuse me of going back and forth. It was a response to your comment regarding wastepaper bins ("If the 'monkeys-on-typewriters' truly worked there'd be more signs of chaotic undesign amoungst the rarity of design (as it relates to those wastebaskets)"). Also note "relatively" and the use of quotation marks around the word "undesigned." My point was that there actually would appear to be plenty of filled-up wastepaper baskets to accompany the monkey's transcript of Shakespeare. I'm not acknowledging signs of design in the universe, and more importantly, the use of "relatively" was supposed to contrast the Earth to the other planets. In arguing against universal design, I've noted quite clearly that such a contrast is nonexistent.

As I said before this is utter nonsense, you contradicting yourself not withstanding. Mostly due to the fact that we know the distinction between anything that is design and undesign no matter what 'level' it's on.

So what is undesign? What does it look like? How would you know how to tell that something was undesigned? Can you provide an example of something that is undesigned? If not, does the concept of "undesign" exist outside of your own imagination? If it doesn't, then how the heck can you attribute any significance to "design?" The very word "design" only takes its meaning from its contrast to "undesign." Just like "light" to "dark" and vice-versa, and all other word pairs that inherently contain the meaning "not the other word." Without a concept of "undesign" to compare "design" to, "design" is meaningless. It isn't an issue when only the Earth is brought as showing "signs of design" (that's when the monkeys tumble in), but when claiming the entire universe shows signs of design, things become very foggy very fast.

The one thing about that, though, is that when one sets Earth in the backdrop of a hypothetical universe that is entirely and completely designed by a monotheistic "god", and says that the Earth shows "signs of design" but that the rest of the known universe does not, the result is a question: why? In this scenario, it all is designed by the same being, and so the while the whole thing actually is "designed," only the Earth and its life-system is deemed as showing signs of it. I can certainly jive with the idea of some things being more designed than others (my slapdash PB&J sandwich of two days ago holds not a flickering match to last year's Thanksgiving dinner), but in that scenario, the "signs of design" are actually signs of more involved design, not design itself. The upshot is mainly that the scenario presents no real way of recognizing a truly undesigned thing. I'm not saying that this negates the argument; I'm merely saying it blurs the windshield, so we'd best have our wipers on and drive slowly. What we're imagining in that scenario is a case of complexity with an instance of immensely greater complexity. I intentionally left no division between "complexity" and "simplicity" to emphasize that the image presents a division between the Earth and the universe, but for the universe, there is nothing. Essentially, it shows that we could recognize the "design" on the level of the Earth by itself, but that the big picture draws a blank.

Another point to remember is that we can recognize "design" more apparently on levels closer to our own. When things go beyond that, when "design" gets broader, things get blurrier. We base the appearance of "design" on our conception of what "design" would look like, rather than on how we understand the act of "design" would occur. We could, for example, probably determine that a bird's nest or rabbit hole is designed because we either know or could easily deduce how they came to be, even if we never laid eyes on or even knew of the bird or rabbit's existence.

We've never experienced a 5 story apartment building formed through undesign, but a person would be insane to advocate that knowing such a structure needs a designer is in question if we don't experience the alternative.

What the heck do five story apartment buildings have to do with this? Are you intentionally building strawmen? We're quite capable of telling what things are designed and undesigned when we provide ourselves with a dividing point between the two--we know what human design looks like, and we know what things not designed by humans look like. If you insist on thinking of the universe as designed, then I guess such things would be designs within a design. But whether the universe is designed or not, trying to say that everything in it looks designed comes to nothing because a dividing point is impossible to determine. There's no way to tell if it "looks designed" because when you stop to think about it, we don't know if it looks designed... because we don't know what it would look like if it didn't look designed.

Horrible analogy to use. In Darwin's day the cell was considered to be simple as it was believed to be 90% useless material left over by evolution. Today we realize how much something that was percieved  to be simple is in actuality irreducibly complex.

I really don't give a hoot about Darwin's day. What I said had nothing to do with Darwin or his day. I'm talking about any grade-school science student learning of atoms and molecules for the first time. What day and age they lived in is beside the point.

As stated above this shows you're going back and forth between this and your first comment in this post.

As stated above, you display a remarkable disregard for the nuances of context. Don't just read what I'm saying, think about how and why I'm saying it. It wouldn't hurt to keep in mind what it is I'm replying to, either.

It had to, as everything we've come to know about the Big Bang says infinite regress is a logical impossibility. The law of entropy and energy clearly can not have the universe winding down then suddenly winding back up again. Since the universe is gradually losing energy in the form of heat and energy can not be created naturalisticly the universe can not logically revitalize itself. It's no coincidence that a wound down watch needs a Watchmaker to wind it back up.

A Watchmaker or a collosal spark to ignite the fire. Or maybe something a bit more gradual, I'm not sure. Either case is quite a valid as the other when you leave the question to pure hypothesis, as our inability to go back in time and witness the event effectively renders us blind.

As it depends on philosophy before it can even get off the ground I wouldn't be so sure of that.

The philosophy that hypothesis and experimentation through trial and error can eventually lead one to truth? Sure. Very shifty, that. I can certainly see why you don't trust it.

If you're saying "science" depends on philosophy before it can even get off the ground, well, that's another question entirely... but the "scientific method?"

Then you've basicly killed your own primary objection, as not all things in the universe are advocated as automatic signs of design. The reason water on Mars is never a sign of life on Mars is for the recognizable fact that hydrogen and oxygen can bond together in an undesigned fashion. Yet those who advocate design will still gladly point out DNA's obvious complexity and functionality. Frankly, I'm beginning to think you've never really looked into the 'evidence from design' arguement and are just glazing it over with a gross generalization.

I'm arguing against a version of it that I was forced to endure at work a few weeks ago because I was too effing polite to tell the well-meaning pastor to go about his business and buy whatever he came to the store to buy, actually. I'm not, and have never claimed to be, arguing against every argument from design. Just the one I claimed to be arguing against. If my wording made failed to make that clear, I apologize. Due to an evening work schedule and the tendency to spend my daylight hours playing videogames rather than being on forums, I come to this site in a half-groggy state, sometimes while waiting for my sleeping pill to kick in (as I am now). I don't really expect to get everything quite the way I meant it, so if I tripped up somewhere, I'm not surprised.

Again no, as the the crux is that if the universe needs X amount of time for the process to occur, and the universe is shown to have less amount of time then needed, or so little time that a slow occuring process would need blinding speed, it is indeed impossible.

And how much time is the universe "shown" to have had?

It's the fact that we don't know how our life came to be on Earth in the first place that reveals evolution to be more philosophy than science.

To a point, I would agree with that assessment. We haven't witnessed it on a macro-level and can't experiment with it, so it's essentially a product of educated guesswork based on those things we can experience and experiment with. I'm not an expert on the subject, however, so I can't say exactly how valid it is.

And I never said 'unknown' but rather postulated 'different'.

Do we "know" of other forms of life that could exist in environments so starkly contrary to our own?

The environment on Saturn may not be unkown but there is no reason it can't support a different form of life suited to it's different environment. And again we have been told rather condescendingly for nearly a hundred years evolution is all about the environment shaping life. As such the simile about life abounding in the universe like fish in the ocean is the logical conclusion of such a system.

The problem with that simile is that without a knowledge of what possible combinations would result in a life-system of some kind forming, it doesn't hold water. There are three basic things that would be necessary for this to happen, and they must all occur in the correct combination: the correct environment, the correct materials, and the time for whatever process takes place to make it work. The materials present in the environment must be correct for the environment, and the environment must be correct for the materials. A mismatch doesn't work. As we have no way of knowing the odds of a mismatch as compared to those of a valid combination, we're stuck working with the minimum odds of life forming based on what life we know is possible--namely, this kind of life.

Mostly because we seem to think we know how the snowglobe works, and atheists seem to take the arrogant position that they know precisely what is and isn't in the snowglobe and beyond it. So I can't really accept such a back handed appeal to how limited we are at the same time. If you want to use that, then agnosticism is the more reasonable way to go.

It's true, isn't it? We don't know much about the universe beyond our considerably limited reach. We've come up with ways to look quite a distance, and have constructed ideas based on what we can see, but much of it could possibly be flawed or even totally off. For all we know, there could be the proverbial brick wall and road-closed sign marking the end of the universe. The last frontier really is one big unknown.

Which was what I said, actually, but it's definitely worth noting the ways that sword can cut.

FTR, I would avoid making generalizations on how atheists think. I myself take a primarily "ignorant" stance on many matters, for two reasons: 1) I'm not an expert on a lot of things that would be important to the kinds of discussions that would go on here (and have neither the time nor motivation to become educated), and 2) there's a lot of stuff we don't know for sure, and I deem it prudent not to give off the impression that we know more than we do. Basically, I'm a cautious atheist-agnostic. Mostly atheist, not so much agnostic. And there's one thing I will never claim--that I'm atheist because it's the most sensible position to take. I'll claim that I'm atheist because I think it is, but I try to keep a mental division between what I think and what actually is. Keeps me reasonable, I suppose.

Quote from: Trent on May 09, 2008, 12:11:50 AM

It wouldn't kill you to consider the context of the statement for a moment before you try to accuse me of going back and forth. It was a response to your comment regarding wastepaper bins ("If the 'monkeys-on-typewriters' truly worked there'd be more signs of chaotic undesign amoungst the rarity of design (as it relates to those wastebaskets)"). Also note "relatively" and the use of quotation marks around the word "undesigned." My point was that there actually would appear to be plenty of filled-up wastepaper baskets to accompany the monkey's transcript of Shakespeare.

Then obviously you missed the part about 'infinite' needing an infinite amount of space, and as space is a created thing it is clearly not infinite.

Eh? Space has a border? That's a new one on me. O_o

Quote

I'm not acknowledging signs of design in the universe, and more importantly, the use of "relatively" was supposed to contrast the Earth to the other planets. In arguing against universal design, I've noted quite clearly that such a contrast is nonexistent.

Obviously you are, as your above response doesn't work without there being one.

Obviously you're being stupid on purpose. Read what you said and then think about how I replied. Please.

Quote

So what is undesign? What does it look like? How would you know how to tell that something was undesigned? Can you provide an example of something that is undesigned?

Sure, going back to the apartment building again one can clearly see the difference between the design from a building and the undesign of a pile of rubble. Or how one can clearly make out the Kryptos from simple scratches on stone.

Yes, indeed. One can easily see the difference on such "levels."

Let's take our focus away from that. Two different levels of focus:

One on the Earth as opposed to the rest of the universe. Arguable.

One on the universe as opposed to... some imaginary concept of what undesign would look like. Not so arguable.

Quote

The one thing about that, though, is that when one sets Earth in the backdrop of a hypothetical universe that is entirely and completely designed by a monotheistic "god", and says that the Earth shows "signs of design" but that the rest of the known universe does not, the result is a question: why?

I see now your problem is you haven't really looked into the ID arguement. As you seem to not understand that the entire point is that the universe is designed with the intent for life on Earth.

All I can say is that that is ONE BIG SKYLIGHT. And mostly a pointless skylight, I might add. The only aspects of the universe at large that would appear to be in harmony with such a statement are the sun and the moon and the fact that none of those comets or meteors has blasted the planet to pieces yet. The other eight planets in our solar system and the asteroid belt would appear to be more like random cosmetic flourishes, as they do nothing to hinder or support life on Earth and aren't even visible without a telescope. Why, they even make such an argument seem less likely, they're so pointless.

That ID argument of yours would be the point presented by a monotheistic POV, such as Christianity or the like, but I wonder if a deist would agree.

And either way, it doesn't even bother to address my concern. Which is that since nothing is truly undesigned (hypothetically), there's no way to tell what something truly undesigned would look like.

Quote

I intentionally left no division between "complexity" and "simplicity" to emphasize that the image presents a division between the Earth and the universe, but for the universe, there is nothing. Essentially, it shows that we could recognize the "design" on the level of the Earth by itself, but that the big picture draws a blank.

Which is why I said the monkey's on typewriters' doesn't work because the entire universe shows design as it relates to life on Earth. For instance the reason you postulate the other planets being 'throw aways' is precisely because for Earth to have an appropriate environment for life, the solar system must be arranged in a very precise way. And that precise way dictates the other conditions of other planets. As such it dictates a very precise way on how the universe functions.

And when a planet falls in the wrong place or lacks the proper ingredients to make that place into a livable environment, that's when the monkey types up gibberish. You do realize that the thing the probability is betting on is the combination of place, time, and elements lining up right, don't you?

And as I have addressed 'levels' don't matter to the issue, as we look for telling signs of complexity and functionality no matter what the level is.

The point is that we have no blue clue what kind of complexity or functionality necessitates design. The assumption that functionality and complexity can't come about on its own is an invention of the one who assumes it.

Quote

What the heck do five story apartment buildings have to do with this? Are you intentionally building strawmen? We're quite capable of telling what things are designed and undesigned when we provide ourselves with a dividing point between the two--we know what human design looks like, and we know what things not designed by humans look like.

Well then you can stop asking what design looks like and what undesign looks like. As you seem to have grasped that we can make a dividing line between the two.

We can make a dividing line between the two when we can see one. I mean clearly see one, not just imagine one up from our own invented conceptions. We know what human design looks like because we caused it and it has its own appearance that sets it apart from nature. We know what an animal-made dwelling looks like in contrast to a natural hole or cave or tree branch because we've seen such things and even seen how they were made or what made them. When one tries to say that the world or universe looks designed, things get foggier because the dividing line is placed by internal expectation not based on anything more substantial than speculation and personal perception. We say there are signs of "design," but we have nothing but a foggy imagining of what those "signs" are signs of. It's not the same as seeing a cut piece of wood and concluding it was hacked at with a hatchet, because we know how hatchets work and what hatchet cuts tend to look like. You're looking at an effect and trying to attribute it to an unknown cause with no real reason to do so. It's hardly what one would call good detective work.

Like I said, this just shows you been glossing the ID arguement with generalizing, as saying the 'universe' appears designed is not the same as 'everything in it'. Shockingly I would think examples in astrology would be different from the issue of biology.

Wait a minute. Did the postulated designer design everything, or not?

Quote

I really don't give a hoot about Darwin's day. What I said had nothing to do with Darwin or his day. I'm talking about any grade-school science student learning of atoms and molecules for the first time. What day and age they lived in is beside the point.

So am I, as the whole point was the perception of simplicity gradually changed to understanding of complexity. Your thrust like all atheist is that if it looks complex one can still deny the glaring obvious.

The "glaringly obvious" in this case is based on what you imagine something would look like. Why would it look the way you think it would?

Quote

A Watchmaker or a collosal spark to ignite the fire. Or maybe something a bit more gradual, I'm not sure. Either case is quite a valid as the other when you leave the question to pure hypothesis, as our inability to go back in time and witness the event effectively renders us blind.

Cop out.

Simple fact. When there are multiple equally viable scenarios with equal amounts of evidence to support them (in this case, none), both are equally worthless. It might as well be left up to a coin flip. If the Big Bang did in fact occur, who's to say why it needed to occur in the first place? Maybe it was God saying "Let there be a lot of planets and stuff... I'll work the rest out tomorrow..." or maybe it was God pushing the reset button, or maybe it was what happened at the end of the winding down, or at some point after it. Why was all that matter in one space and why did it burst out? Who knows? Nobody. So we're blind.

Quote

The philosophy that hypothesis and experimentation through trial and error can eventually lead one to truth? Sure. Very shifty, that. I can certainly see why you don't trust it.

If you're saying "science" depends on philosophy before it can even get off the ground, well, that's another question entirely... but the "scientific method?"

You've proven my point. As your philosophy of science being more reliable then any other method is apparent.

...So what's the so-called point I've proven? If I've proven that my philosophy states that experience trumps imagination, then I'm guilty as charged.

Quote

I'm not, and have never claimed to be, arguing against every argument from design. Just the one I claimed to be arguing against. If my wording made failed to make that clear, I apologize. Due to an evening work schedule and the tendency to spend my daylight hours playing videogames rather than being on forums, I come to this site in a half-groggy state, sometimes while waiting for my sleeping pill to kick in (as I am now). I don't really expect to get everything quite the way I meant it, so if I tripped up somewhere, I'm not surprised.

Well then I don't see much use in continuing as you appear to be under several misconceptions about what it means for the universe to show signs of design.

If I am, then my acquaintance was a lousy apologist. Which he probably was. (Kind of a nag, too...) But I haven't stated what the supposed signs of design are, so how do you know? I've only stated that the signs are said to be present.

Quote

And how much time is the universe "shown" to have had?

Depends on what philosophy you ascribe to. If you need evolution to work billions. However you can see this site for arguements for the universe's 'younger' age:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Oh, goody, so in other words, the universe hasn't been shown to have a definite time. It's still in debate. Wonderful.

Quote

Do we "know" of other forms of life that could exist in environments so starkly contrary to our own?

No, and that's the point if evolution has the environment the main factor of how life forms.

It has the combination of environment and ingredient as the main factor. If the combination doesn't work from the off, then evolution doesn't even have a chance to be aborted--intercourse never even took place, so there's no need to worry about any unplanned pregnancy.

How remarkably designed the conditions have to be for life to even get started evolving.

Remarkably correct. Remarkably "designed?" Maybe... how do you know "correct" equates to "designed?" We're back to watchmakers versus typewriter monkeys, it seems.

Quote

FTR, I would avoid making generalizations on how atheists think. I myself take a primarily "ignorant" stance on many matters, for two reasons: 1) I'm not an expert on a lot of things that would be important to the kinds of discussions that would go on here (and have neither the time nor motivation to become educated), and 2) there's a lot of stuff we don't know for sure, and I deem it prudent not to give off the impression that we know more than we do. Basically, I'm a cautious atheist-agnostic. Mostly atheist, not so much agnostic. And there's one thing I will never claim--that I'm atheist because it's the most sensible position to take. I'll claim that I'm atheist because I think it is, but I try to keep a mental division between what I think and what actually is. Keeps me reasonable, I suppose.

I don't need to postulate what atheist's think, as it is atheism itself that takes up such a condition by definition.

The definition of atheism contains nothing more or less than a lack of belief in gods. The word has been saddled with a connotation denoting a lean toward a more positive belief that no gods exist, which is why I sometimes use "agnostic" to clarify where my "lean" is, but the bare-bones definition of atheism does nothing but state that one point of an undoubtedly many-pointed belief system which tends to differ from individual to individual.

Theists all around the planet are waiting for the explanation on how an atheist can simultaneously don't know much, but think God doesn't exsist. Like I said if you want to be reasonable on this point, you should try switching your atheism-agnostic position around.

My "lean" is based more on personal logic than anything, and I won't bother arguing that point. It's more or less my flip of the coin in a case that looks to me like one choice is as good as another.

I'd like to register, however, that never once in my life have I bothered to make a case for God's nonexistence. Arguing against cases made for his existence isn't necessarily making a case for his nonexistence. Not that I believe it possible to prove a negative...