There's simply no way you can know that, period. Plus, as I said, God could allow for chance to some extent and still be in control of the outcome. Ignoring this doesn't nullify it.

Complexity.

I gave you a proof of exactly HOW I know that.

And this is an answer?

So I should read: "Based on complexity, my claim is simply that it's reasonable to believe in a designer when there is appearance of design." and should make sense out of that?

Did you miss this bit?

And just like the last time, you immediately begin equivocating on appearance and actuality. I said:

"Most people would say" - as in, present tense. Most people, right here, right now, all over the world, would say that it looks as though the Sun orbits the Earth - that the Sun "has that appearance". And, IMO, they are wrong to say this. They're wrong to say it because no contrary state of affairs is imaginable - you can't describe what the Sun would look like if it didn't look that way. Your inability to describe a universe that doesn't appear designed consigns the appearance of universal design to the same conceptual scrap-heap - it's a failed idea.

Nah.

http://search.conduit.com/ResultsExt...ind+watchmaker

This line is funny:

And just because it's POSSIBLE, means you get to win regardless of how REMOTELY UNLIKELY your scenario is??

This is the part I take issue with. Do you feel that I shouldn't?

Now you're just postulating an unbeatable "Goddidit and you can't prove otherwise" card which is unpractical in everyday conversation and you know it. Let me elaborate:

If God or [insert any other concept controlling our lives besides randomness] is pulling the strings, but things just happen to work in a way in which God or [insert any other concept controlling our lives besides randomness] doesn't exist, does it really matter? Can we even base our lives around this phenomenon that you say "could be" "might" "maybe" "potentially" "possibly" be true?

Even if you don't believe it, you should at least have enough imagination to visualize what true randomness might look like -- especially in poker.

No, I ignored it.

And I would say they're right - it DOES look like the sun orbits the earth. It ALSO looks like the earth rotates. Then we discover that motion is relative. So we know we can't tell from our position which is true. And, as far as our eternal souls are concerned, so what?

BTW, not all ancients accepted geocentrism. From Wiki:

Again, what we call chance is just a statement about what we don't know. The more we know the more the probability changes. Because chance isn't a force, it's a calculation.

Edit: Here's an example. When the dealer shuffles you have a 1/52 chance of being dealt the As. Suppose you see the As as he gathers the cards together and you're able to track the approximate position through the shuffle so that you know it's somewhere in the top 1/3 of the deck. Now you know there's about 1/17 chance you'll get the As. The probability for you changed because of your greater knowledge.

Yes, so you could start bibbling on about irrelevancies instead of addressing the issue.

Taa-daa! Now apply this very, very simple leap of insight to the 'appearance of design' malarkey and presto! we cannot infer anything from the alleged 'appearance of design'. Nada. Zip. Nothing. It's a train with no tracks under it.

Hey... did you know that chameleons don't actually change colour to blend in with their surroundings? That ostriches do not bury their heads in the ground? That rhubarb leaves are toxic in high doses? I ask because you seem to want to trade interesting and irrelevant tidbits of information ITT.

Weird series of words here. I'm no expert, but it looks like you're making arguments for 3 competing worldviews in 3 consecutive sentences.

WTF dude??

Here's a counter-example (since you strawmanned me):

Suppose an RNG dealt you the cards instead of this amateur dealer you want dealing them.

Your turn...

We have to deal with appearance all day long every day of our lives. If you apply your simple (simplistic!!) idea to practical living you will end up with the concept that the most reasonable thing to do is stay in bed until you starve to death.

It was you who emphasized modernity for some unknown reason so I will assume you're directing your sarcasm at yourself.

Edit: Man, I love Wiki:

Some chameleon species are able to change their skin colors. Different chameleon species are able to change different colors which can include pink, blue, red, orange, green, black, brown, yellow and turquoise.[6][7]

Some varieties of chameleon - such as the Smith's dwarf chameleon - use their color-changing ability to blend in with their surroundings, as an effective form of camouflage.[8]

You need to sleep on this and try again another day.

In everyday conversation, I'll let the comment about the Sun slide. I'll let lots of things slide, when the consequences of doing so are trivial. Per your own comments, I can't let this slide. Who cares how the concept applies to practical living? We're not discussing 'practical living'.
Assume away. I emphasised modernity to underscore the total, and I do mean total irrelevance of the actual relationship between the Earth and the Sun. I emphasised modernity because I assume that most people today who would say it looks that way would be perfectly aware that it is not the case. Not complicated.

Fine, most of them use it for courtship rituals, etc. Enjoy the cheap point; it's the only one you've scored so far, and it's on a subject that was introduced because it's irrelevant to the topic.

Yeah, like you weren't trying to score a cheap point by bringing it up and now you're all in a lather cause I gotcha.

Yeah, ya got me. Zing. Burn. Etc. Anything to avoid giving up the precious appearance of design. It convinces so many unreflective people!

I have said nothing about where anything came from. That's all you.

You said Windows XP had to come from a string of randomly mutating variables for evolution to be true, and I merely pointed out that you left out natural selection which adds predictability.

I would likewise point out a table where everyone goes all in on a hand in poker would most likely favor the one fortunate enough to get dealt the best cards. That you disagree with this and use it as proof that I'm irrational because I am an atheist is a statement that needs no answer; it speaks for itself.

NR: you still haven't addressed what you can infer from all the things in the universe which appear not to be designed, or at least poorly or sub-optimally designed...what do they do for the "appearence of design" or do you hold that there are no such inefficiences, failures, etc.

As Paley said just because the watch is broken doesn't mean it wasn't designed - it's still a watch.

In the context of this debate, this looks like a concession that All-In Flynn is correct (Am I reading it wrong?), but you still advocating the same view(s), but offering an alternative reason for supporting them: they are practical.

Of course All-In mentioned already that practicality is irrelevant to this discussion, but I want to point out that you are very critical of people for their form, i.e. you insulted me so I'm done speaking with you, you employed a logical fallacy so I will throw it right back in your face instead of answering your question, etc., and to me, what you have done here is the ultimate in bad form. It seems like a complete cop out.

I have found this to be a very enjoyable thread. You guys are having a very entertaining and relatively civil debate. But I have to ask: are you stopping to reflect at any time, or are you merely reacting reflexively? A la tame_deuce's recent sissy thread, can you take a step back and look at this thread without any ego and see what it looks like to you? Give it a shot! Anyway, regardless, carry on!

I will agree Dawkins can be unreflective.

I must have really, really poor communication skills.

*shrug*, keep closing your eyes and ears