Intelligent Designer Theory Applied to the Universe

[Hobot]

A friend of mine is a devout Catholic. I have no problem with that since I was a Catholic for most of my life and I'm still attending a Catholic High School. However, my friend insists that God can be proven to exist logically. He claims that one of the religion teachers (a Mr. Hill, who teaches that rhetoric is valid to use if used for good...) has outlined quite a number of proofs (I think he said around 30) for God. Naturally, I feel that this is bullshit. I am rather fond of my friend and I don't wish to see him turn into a fundie. I'm attempting to get him to accept that God cannot be disproven or proven logically, and that belief in him must be based entirely on faith. We've had many debates that have gone nowhere, particularily over homosexuality which he believes to be unnatural and wrong (I proved that over 480 species of birds and mammals exhibit homosexuality but he stood by the Bible). I think the only way I'm going to get him to be more rational and liberal is if I manage to disprove his assumptions.

One of the "proofs" I'm having trouble refuting is the Intelligent Designer Theory applied to the Universe. I think he believes in evolution, but as for the creation of the Universe, he believes that it's complexity and orderliness is proof of a designer. I tried to counter by saying it's far from orderly and that complexity is usually a sign of randomness, but then he'll counter with that stupid watchmaker analogy and then tell me to, "Look around, look at this building, things look pretty orderly to me." He doesn't seem to realize that compared to most of the other 6 billion people in the world, he's living in paradise.

Oh, and there's another one he pointed out today, something about miracles, specifically the Fatima one. I said that loads of people make predictions and sometimes they come true, but it's random. He said he understood my position, but went on to make an analogy about flipping a coin 1000 times and getting heads every time (referring to all the miracles in the Church's history). I'm afraid I don't know much more than the propoganda I've been fed regarding Fatima. Are there any sites or threads on this board that have offered some evidence against the miracle of Fatima?

Thanks in advance for any help and appologies in advance if these questions have been asked before!

[The Dark]

As far as the watchmaker analogy goes:

That's a false analogy. One cannot compare the artifical world to the natural world. To attempt to claim that God would design things just as man does is to anthropomorphize God, which is a heresy. In fact, one could just as easily compare the world to an organism (Gaia theory) as to a watch (Paley's watchmaker). And we do not design organisms (well, not yet...)

Additionally, the mere fact that there is a designer does not prove it to be the Christian God. It could just as easily be Allah, Ahura Mazda, Brahma. Indeed, the imperfections of this world would suggest that either the god that designed this world has an imperfect understanding of methods of creation, or perhaps has become old and senile.

An Epicurean explanation would fit the apparent order of the world just as well as the watchmaker. If we assume the universe consists of atoms and void, each existing eternally, then over an infinite amount of time, the finite atoms will assume every possible combination. We just happen to exist at the time of a particular one.

Hopefully this helps a bit. I've never heard of the Fatima argument, though I can throw in a question to ask: Does God act only in supernatural ways? i.e. Does God act only in miracles, which are understood to be unusual events that violate the laws of nature? If so, then your friend is a Deist, which is another form of heretic. In fact, such supernatural intrusions into the natural order God established would question the very character of God. Since God established the natural order, for God to violate it would suggest that God did not hold truthfulness in high regard. It would limit God to where humanity cannot go (beyond nature), thus removing the relationship that is supposed to be at the core of Christianity.

There is, in fact, no word translatable as "miracle" in the Bible. All such occurrences are mistranslations of the Greek word semeion, which means "sign."

[Trytostaydead]

I agree, to accept any sort of religion is on a basis of faith. However, his example at pointing towards a building was shaky at best. Perhaps the better example would be if he brought out his electron microscope or took you to an anatomy or molecular class.. then THAT is real orderliness (provided you don't screw up your specimen too much). Perhaps my virology professor said it best though regarding faith, logic, and intuition though it probably wasn't his intention to do so, "Applying human logic to biology is stupid and does not work."

Of course a system always goes towards a state of entropy until someone creates a perpetual machine, but entropy is not REALLY disorder. It's part of the recycling process. Nothing man has created can even compare to the sheer beauty and perfection of one of the Universe's simplest, smallest creations, the virus.

Perhaps Shakespeare expressed it best in King Lear, "Nothing comes from Nothing."

[Darth Wong]

A friend of mine is a devout Catholic. I have no problem with that since I was a Catholic for most of my life and I'm still attending a Catholic High School. However, my friend insists that God can be proven to exist logically. He claims that one of the religion teachers (a Mr. Hill, who teaches that rhetoric is valid to use if used for good...) has outlined quite a number of proofs (I think he said around 30) for God.

The best way to show what's wrong with most proofs for God is to simply re-phrase it in the simplest manner possible, so that the bullshit is stripped away. For example, "I don't understand, therefore God" sounds almost ridiculous, but they like to phrase it in a long-winded way that somehow sounds more plausible. Restate a typical God-proof in the simplest way possible and it never sounds quite as good.

Naturally, I feel that this is bullshit. I am rather fond of my friend and I don't wish to see him turn into a fundie. I'm attempting to get him to accept that God cannot be disproven or proven logically, and that belief in him must be based entirely on faith. We've had many debates that have gone nowhere, particularily over homosexuality which he believes to be unnatural and wrong (I proved that over 480 species of birds and mammals exhibit homosexuality but he stood by the Bible). I think the only way I'm going to get him to be more rational and liberal is if I manage to disprove his assumptions.

Ask him to define "wrong", and explain why "unnatural" is "wrong". Ask him if he has moral qualms with microwave ovens.

One of the "proofs" I'm having trouble refuting is the Intelligent Designer Theory applied to the Universe. I think he believes in evolution, but as for the creation of the Universe, he believes that it's complexity and orderliness is proof of a designer.

Ask him why complexity = God. When he answers that he doesn't understand how the universe could create complexity on its own, point out that he's appealing to his own ignorance.

I tried to counter by saying it's far from orderly and that complexity is usually a sign of randomness, but then he'll counter with that stupid watchmaker analogy and then tell me to, "Look around, look at this building, things look pretty orderly to me." He doesn't seem to realize that compared to most of the other 6 billion people in the world, he's living in paradise.

His ignorance of the microscopic world is not a valid argument. He is trying to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the natural world to generate complexity on its own even though complexity is the natural outcome of entropy. Ask him to defend this nonsense.

Oh, and there's another one he pointed out today, something about miracles, specifically the Fatima one. I said that loads of people make predictions and sometimes they come true, but it's random. He said he understood my position, but went on to make an analogy about flipping a coin 1000 times and getting heads every time (referring to all the miracles in the Church's history).

Point out that there are two kinds of predictions which always come true:

1) Vague predictions.
2) Predictions in which people take an active hand in making it come true.

If I predict that you're going to get punched in the face and then I punch you in the face, that does not make me prescient. If I predict that you will someday experience great joy but you will also experience great tragedy in your life, that also does not make me prescient. Vague predictions and self-fulfilled prophecies are worthless. Every time someone has tried to nail down a specific date for an event from the Bible before the fact (like all of the various judgement days that have come and gone), they have failed miserably. And the Bible failed to predict Rome; no small omission, since the Romans killed Jesus.

Christians expend great effort to either interpret prophecies to be true or force them to come true, and then point to their own success as proof that those prophecies were magical.

Simple question: ask him what it would take to disprove a Biblical prophecy.

I'm afraid I don't know much more than the propoganda I've been fed regarding Fatima. Are there any sites or threads on this board that have offered some evidence against the miracle of Fatima?

I don't even know what the miracle of Fatima is. I'm sure it's just as much pathetic bullshit as all of the other "miracles".

[Colonel Olrik]

don't even know what the miracle of Fatima is. I'm sure it's just as much pathetic bullshit as all of the other "miracles".

Watch out, you're talking about a major portuguese tourist attraction, here

We want the foreigners to BELIEVE, come here and spend an obscene amount of money in souvenirs.

In short, the "miracle" goes like this:

Three little sheppards from poor Portugal almost a hundred years ago, alone on the countryside, saw Virgin Mary appear in thin air. She told them that men should behave (it was during the WW) and a big, huge secret that cannot go to public (the oldest of the sheppards, a girl, wrote a letter to the Pope that is stored in the Vatican, forever barred to mortals eyes).

The credit that a vision related by little, poor, brainwashed kids deserves is a matter of opinion, of course

edit: Now that I think of it, I believe at least part of the huge secret has been revealed recently. Apparently, the girl predicted the attempt at the current Pope's life, in the 80's. Of course, that's the vatican interpretation, since the exact words of the letter are not available.

[neoolong]

Right. Well, I'm convinced.

[Colonel Olrik]

Right. Well, I'm convinced.

No, no! It's true, it's true! You must visit the Holy Place, the Sanctuary and the blessed restaurants and hotels and gift shops and Comercial centers!

We want to bless your dollars! Don't let them down.


edit: and it's a nice place too, really. Lots of girls and beaches = > sex on the beaches.

[Durandal]

edit: Now that I think of it, I believe at least part of the huge secret has been revealed recently. Apparently, the girl predicted the attempt at the current Pope's life, in the 80's. Of course, that's the vatican interpretation, since the exact words of the letter are not available.

Of course, since the Catholic church is always honest and forthright. It would never pull a prediction out of thin air to grant itself legitimacy ...

[Joe]

http://hesemann.watchers.ca/fatimasun.html

Here's some stuff on the Fatima miracle. With photos!

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The reason they keep the three "secrets" of the Fatima secret is so that they could claim events that occured were predicted by the Virgin Mary. Keeping the original documents secret also prevents anyone from verifying their story, conviently enough. But who am I to suggest that Holy Mother Church would do such a thing?

[Durandal]

http://hesemann.watchers.ca/fatimasun.html

Here's some stuff on the Fatima miracle. With photos!

The only explanation would be mass delusional hysteria. If the sun started spinning, you could damn well bet that scientists would know because it would alter the sun's magnetic field.

[Joe]

Duh. None of this shit ever occurs while a skeptic is looking.

[Darth Wong]

That is the funniest thing I ever saw.

On October 13, 1917, about 70.000 eyewitnesses, congregated during the last of the six apparitions of Our Lady in Fatima, Portugal, saw what they described as "the dance of the sun". On a rainy midday, the clouds started to burst, releasing the whirling and rotating sun which, as it appeared, came so close that the wet clothes of the witnesses dried.

Let me get this straight: a bunch of people in Portugal in 1917 saw the Sun come out in the middle of a storm and it dried their clothes. Therefore, miracle.

Oh yeah, they think the Sun was "whirling and rotating", and that it had to closely approach the Earth in order to accomplish the stupendous feat of drying their clothes (oddly enough, strong sunlight dries my clothes even without this miracle).

And they undoubtedly dismiss the obvious explanation of an optical illusion probably related to air moisture and atmospheric refraction because it's a miracle, even though nobody else around the world noticed this fantastic phenomenon. The Sun is pretty easy to see from, oh, about half of the world's surface at any given time; did it ever occur to these idiots to ask why nobody else saw this?

[Hobot]

I'm told that the kids predicted the date and time when the sun would "dance". Apparently, for most of the day the sky was full of thick black clouds and the rain was very heavy. Then, at the predicted time, the clouds suddenly dissapeared, the sun came out, and everyone was dry (all of this takes place in minutes).

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

That is the funniest thing I ever saw.

On October 13, 1917, about 70.000 eyewitnesses, congregated during the last of the six apparitions of Our Lady in Fatima, Portugal, saw what they described as "the dance of the sun". On a rainy midday, the clouds started to burst, releasing the whirling and rotating sun which, as it appeared, came so close that the wet clothes of the witnesses dried.

Let me get this straight: a bunch of people in Portugal in 1917 saw the Sun come out in the middle of a storm and it dried their clothes. Therefore, miracle.

Oh yeah, they think the Sun was "whirling and rotating", and that it had to closely approach the Earth in order to accomplish the stupendous feat of drying their clothes (oddly enough, strong sunlight dries my clothes even without this miracle).

And they undoubtedly dismiss the obvious explanation of an optical illusion probably related to air moisture and atmospheric refraction because it's a miracle, even though nobody else around the world noticed this fantastic phenomenon. The Sun is pretty easy to see from, oh, about half of the world's surface at any given time; did it ever occur to these idiots to ask why nobody else saw this?

Localized atmospheric are a trade mark of Jesus-Jehovah-God Inc. (TM). By the order of the court HE on most HIGH you are hereby ordered to cease and desist of all reference to such events that may result in the contradiction of Church Dogma. Failure to do so will result in the bombarbment of your home and property by a localized atmospheric percesion strike of "Plauge of Hail", taken from a warehouse, to be used to strike down those who disobey HIM who is I AM.

Furthermore, should your property and home not be subjected to a "plauge" of Hail upon further violation, it should not be interpreted as the non-existence of either Jesus-Jehovah-God Inc., HIM who is I AM, nor the said warehouse of hail, but rather as a sign of the Good Grace and Mercy on the part of the said individuals and groups.

[Sriad]

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_037.html

Here's the (ahem) straight dope on the Fatima situation. Good luck with your friend, Hobot.

[Darth Wong]

I'm told that the kids predicted the date and time when the sun would "dance". Apparently, for most of the day the sky was full of thick black clouds and the rain was very heavy. Then, at the predicted time, the clouds suddenly dissapeared, the sun came out, and everyone was dry (all of this takes place in minutes).

Funny how everyone produces recollections of accurate predictions after the fact. My own sister-in-law railed against my blunt statement that people can never produce credible documentation of predictions made before the fact, and how they always rely upon recollection, documented only after the fact. She cited some kind of psychic phenomenon that she'd supposedly had which was fully documented. I asked to see this documentation. She said she'd lost it, but she had a recollection of documenting it

Sadly, I'm not making this up.

[Hobot]

Thanks for all the help everyone. Unfortunately, I still don't have a clear argument against the miracle of Fatima. Most references I find disputing it are focused mainly on the three prophecies given to the children rather than the miracle itself.

I don't think it would be a valid argument to just say that t he 70 000 - 100 000 people there all experienced a mass hallucination...

[neoolong]

Thanks for all the help everyone. Unfortunately, I still don't have a clear argument against the miracle of Fatima. Most references I find disputing it are focused mainly on the three prophecies given to the children rather than the miracle itself.

I don't think it would be a valid argument to just say that t he 70 000 - 100 000 people there all experienced a mass hallucination...

But if it actually happened, then why the hell did nobody else record it? Like Wong says, a lot of people can see the sun at any given time.

[Durandal]

Thanks for all the help everyone. Unfortunately, I still don't have a clear argument against the miracle of Fatima. Most references I find disputing it are focused mainly on the three prophecies given to the children rather than the miracle itself.

I don't think it would be a valid argument to just say that t he 70 000 - 100 000 people there all experienced a mass hallucination...

Such a thing is not unheard of (billions of people believe in God, after all). The sun spinning around in the sky on, the other hand, is, and we'd be able to detect traces of it happening. The sun's magnetic field would have been extremely erratic if it was making several full revolutions per second. Also, where did all of this angular momentum come from? Where did it go? Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to get the sun spinning at even 1 revolution per minute? This energy would have to come from somewhere, and it would have to go somewhere.

Since the claim is scientifically absurd, and none of the traces we'd expect to see if it occurred have been observed, it can be stated with confidence that it simply didn't happen. People are free to speculate about what did happen, but the fact is that the sun didn't start spinning around and dancing. The burden of proof doesn't rest on the skeptics.

And by the way, were these idiots actually looking directly at the sun for an extended period of time?! Even if we assume that they could see it without being blinded, the sun's light appears at bright-white to our eyes. It would be impossible to tell if it was spinning just by looking at it. The fact that they weren't all blinded merely reinforces the conclusion that the whole event is a fabrication.

[Hobot]

They specifically mention in the stories of Fatima that the sun was not damaging to the eyes and that they could look at it like they looked at the moon. They also like to compare the sun's appearance to that of an eclipse, but even looking directly at an eclipse can mess up your eyes...

As for your point about the burden of proof lying on them, I had thought of that but then they'd probably counter with saying God can manipulate the laws of the universe at will. Also, my friend's argument rests on the "fact" that the clouds dissapeared within mintues, the sun came out at the time the kids said it would, and it dried everyone within moments.

[Durandal]

They specifically mention in the stories of Fatima that the sun was not damaging to the eyes and that they could look at it like they looked at the moon. They also like to compare the sun's appearance to that of an eclipse, but even looking directly at an eclipse can mess up your eyes...

Then they're simply lying. If the sun was not damaging to their eyes, it would have stopped radiating virtually 100% of the light and heat it emits. No one else on the planet observed the sun suddenly becoming easily observable without going blind.

As for your point about the burden of proof lying on them, I had thought of that but then they'd probably counter with saying God can manipulate the laws of the universe at will.

They're invoking supernatural explanations, which are untestable and therefore invalid. Sure, 100 000 people may have claimed to see this nonsense, but the hundreds of millions of other people to which the sun was visible at that time reported nothing of the sort.

My explanation requires terms which are known to exist: delusional maniacs (all of which the witnesses were, since they were all religious and came there expecting to see something) and/or human dishonesty. Your friend's explanation requires supernatural, untestable terms and blatant violations of every natural law in existence, which makes it an inferior and utterly absurd explanation.

The idea that the sun actually got closer to the Earth is simply laughable. If it had gotten close enough to dry those people's clothes within a few minutes, any competent scientist would have seen it ... right before being fried with the rest of the surface due to the intense solar radiation.

Atmospheric lensing effects and optical illusions due to increased moisture content in the air are quite frequent. It's quite possible that this was all just an immensely exaggerated optical illusion, unless you're telling me that believing Christians would never exaggerate their own experiences to reinforce the validity of their beliefs.

Also, my friend's argument rests on the "fact" that the clouds dissapeared within mintues, the sun came out at the time the kids said it would, and it dried everyone within moments.

Cloud dispersion within a few minutes is not indicative of a violation of the laws of physics. It happens all the time. Did the children give an exact time of when the sun would outshine all the clouds? Down to the second? Or did the Virgin Mary not see fit to provide them with precise information?

This "prediction" was only revealed after the fact.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

<snip>One of the "proofs" I'm having trouble refuting is the Intelligent Designer Theory applied to the Universe. I think he believes in evolution, but as for the creation of the Universe, he believes that it's complexity and orderliness is proof of a designer. I tried to counter by saying it's far from orderly and that complexity is usually a sign of randomness, but then he'll counter with that stupid watchmaker analogy and then tell me to, "Look around, look at this building, things look pretty orderly to me." He doesn't seem to realize that compared to most of the other 6 billion people in the world, he's living in paradise.

Let's see if I have this right. Your friend argues that:

A) The universe is very complex and seems to be fit together in a way that life and everything can exist.

B) There's no way such complexity can exist without some manner of intelligent design.

C) The only way one can have a complex enough understanding of a universe to design it in such a way that life would exist in it is if one was omnipotent and omniscient.

D) God is generally described as being omnipotent and omniscient.

E) Since it takes a omnipotent and omniscient being to design a complex universe, and God is described as an omnipotent and omniscient being, God must exist, QED.

Here is how to efficiently deconstruct the "Intelligent Designer" argument.

A & B) It's a case of the puddle of mud that happens to perfectly fit the impression in the ground it formed in. This is a random process that comes together out of a whole variety of complex starting conditions. (Such as what time of day it rains, and how long it rains, and the type of soil and moisture saturation of the soil.) All of these are fairly complex factors that come together to produce a puddle of mud of a given shape and size and consistency. From the point of view of the puddle of mud, the universe around it (the impression and the dirt suspended in the water) is perfectly suited to the existence of this puddle of mud. However, we observe no intelligent designer mucking about creating the ideal conditions for mud puddle formation.

B & C) Further disproof of the watchmaker analogy. The human organism is a very complex set of interacting proteins and fluids and other stuff that does things usually associated with being human, such as thinking. If an intelligent designer created humans, then why did this intelligent designer do it in such a way that numerous, potentially crippling flaws continually crop up in the blueprint. Even a typical layman could likely think of at least several ways that humans could've been designed better. This implies that if there was an intelligent designer, the designer was negligent, which does not imply omniscience. And since the designer has taken no steps to correct his negligence, that does not speak well for any omnipotence the intelligent designer might posess either.

Furthermore, the hominid fossil record is well-preserved enough that we can demonstrate a line of species that gradually became more human-like, and can also demonstrate that the climate of the areas hominid fossils were found in was changing, driving natural selection and adaptation, which would not be the case if an intelligent designer was driving things.

[Hobot]

My friend recognizes that the miracle was physically impossible, so attacking it with scientific explanations wouldn't help.

As for the crowd of 100 000, apparently there were more than just religiously feverent Chrisitians. There were skeptics and believers alike and they all saw the same thing.

He's also telling me that I'm claiming to know more than Mr. Hill (the religion teacher who has supposedly read everything there is on Fatima) from just one night of research.

[Hobot]

Here's a source for the sun miracle: http://www.fatima.org/miracle.html