EDIT (Original Position): I'm moving this discussion to a new thread as it doesn't pertain to the distinction between atheism and agnosticism but is substantive enough to keep going on its own.

no it isn't, or at least, its very weak evidence.

No, we've been through this many times. I agree that whoever claims there is a multiverse should have to provide proof.

Here is a good short clip of a documentary that discusses the current state of the evidence for fine tunning that exist today. The participants are Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind, and Max Tegmark. All three are quite respected in the world of cosmology. Leonard and Max are atheists...not sure about Martin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2...eature=related

I think later on in that documentary Susskind admits that if was somehow shown that a multiverse or Landscape model where ever disproven, physicists would be hard pressed to counter arguments that the universe is intelligently designed.

You guys never offer any compelling counter argument except to say "No it doesn't appear fine tuned".

The fact that multiverse theories exists is testiment to a need to explain things about the universe which are simply unreasonable to attribute to chance or as brute facts that we hope will be explained by some hopefully soon to be discovered theory.

It doesn't really have anything to do with a multiverse. The idea that appearance of design implies design is flawed because we have numerous examples of things that appear designed that aren't.

Watch the last 10 seconds of the video you have linked.

I just prefer to point out that an intelligent design of the universe is inconsistent with the flawed and unintelligent "God inspired" Bible. At least that eliminates almost all Christians from the argument.

I would bet you use the appearance of design as reliable evidence of designer most of the time....a big exception being when you want to reject the notion of God.

The cosmological constant is tuned to a precision of 120 decimal places. This is a fact which calls out for an explaination. There are four(really just three) explainations that currently exist:

1. Random Happenstance
2. Intelligent design.
3. Multiverse
4. It is just some brute fact which we hope will be explained by an undiscovered theory(we can discount this because this is not explaination at all but rather just hope for some future explaination).

No I don't? What a truly bizarre thing to assert. If you want to ask me how I can tell something is designed I'll answer you though.

(We have done this so many times though, seriously)

I think many Christians would brand some of the statements I have made about God as heresy. I'm pretty sure that had I wrote some of the things I wrote in this forum 500 years ago I would have been burned at the stake.

Also this is very tilting. Implying that I know god exists but don't want to believe it eh? Is this what you tell yourself to reconcile that people don't always believe what you believe?

If all of the current evidence - FOR - and - AGAINST - intelligent design were to be collated, I am positive that the evidence - AGAINST - would trump the evidence - FOR -. However, this does not mean that - AGAINST - should be the default stance. Until there is statistically significant evidence either - FOR - or - AGAINST - the default stance should be - we do not currently know (agnostic).

But the guy on the adjacent stake would tell you "Today you will be with me in paradise".

Suppose you are an astronaut...the first human being to land on planet X which is a solar system on the otherside of the galaxy. You pick a rock with your geology hammer and it opens up. Inside you find a small flat almost perfectly circular peice of metal. On the piece of metal appears to be markings which look like they could be symbols and a picture which looks like it could be a face.

Would you conclude the object is designed solely on its appearance?

And I would crack a smile.

Well you are being purposely vague here, but lets say they are markings and are a face, respectively. From my inductive reasoning I know that these sorts of markings are only made by intelligence (i.e every smiley face I have ever seen has been drawn by intelligence)

Seriously though, me and concerto had a pretty big discussion about this not all that long ago, and I know you've made threads about why you think the cosmological constant is evidence of design, (and ive answered why I think it isnt) so in reality this has all been done to death and I don't see why you think bringing up the exact same arguments that didn't convince anybody (even some theists) will work here.

"most of the time"...like for things we know are designed. like a computer.

Totally different than the notion of God, or the "exception" as you call it. The exception being something that we have no proof of, let alone something/someone we have seen build said object (universe) before.

You and Jib man....you'll never stop with this garbage, will you?

Nothing I have written in this thread suggests unambigious evidence of God's existence. It only suggest that intellect is a rationale explaination for our observations about the universe. If I have suggested anything it is that it is silly to deny that intellect is a rational explaination....but thats what atheist essentially do.

They say..."show me proof of intellect...this is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence!" You never hear them say "show me proof that its happenstance or proof that its a multiverse or proof that its simply an unexplainable brute fact....these are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence!"

If you are going to reject intellect as an explaination then you must reject the other explainations for the same reasons.

This is a strawmanned mess... what are you doing? No one here said anything about a multi-verse or happenstance except you. If you are talking about what some other atheists might say... how is that relevant?

It honestly just seems like Stu (and to a lesser extent jib) doesn't know what induction is.

Because in my mind...a true agnostic would portend not to know if God exists. He would say that that God is as good as an explaination as the others.

An atheist on the other hand doesn't hold God as an explaination to be on the same level as other explainations. He might acknowledge it as a very small possibility...as many of you have done in this forum.

How about this for an inductive argument.

Premise 1: Most things which have the appearance of design are in fact designed.
Premise 2: The universe has the appearance of being designed.

Conclusion: Therefore it follows that the universe probably is designed.

No.

Do you really think your characterization of "most" is accurate here, how do you know? Furthermore what is the criterion for, "appearance of design?" If you want to construct an argument, you have to put in a little more work than this.

Actually this is not why the argument fails. Upon further inspection, the argument fails because you can't use the word "most" here. It doesn't follow that because "Most things are X, this specific thing is X" even if it is true that "most things are X."

regardless, we seem to be having a different conversation than everyone else in this thread, so if you wish to continue it, either PM me or start a new one, I dont want to derail any further.