Thursday, September 8, 2011

nice try vince, but no cigar

My responses are in bold type.

vince torley says:

First of all, we need to define what we mean by “beauty” when talking about the laws of nature.

"we"? And you'll never come up with an 'objective' definition of beauty regarding the laws of nature.

Some people would regard beauty as a wholly subjective property.

Beauty IS a wholly subjective property.

However, it turns out that beauty can be given a clear and non-arbitrary definition.

Utter hogwash.

In his argument, Collins uses the definition proposed by the 18th century English painter William Hogarth, pictured above:

You're just appealing to authority and subjective opinion again vince. You're right, you're NOT a scientist.

The beauty of the cosmos suggests a fine-tuning argument.

In your delusional mind.

The key intuition here is that even if we put aside those possible universes that cannot support life and limit ourselves to those that can support life, the vast majority of these universes will have laws that are far less beautiful than our own.

Did you take too much LSD in college?

Collins argues that only theism offers a ready explanation of the underlying beauty of the laws of nature.

Well goodie for Collins! He sounds as delusional as you! Hey vince, can you tell me why the flying spaghetti monster isn't a "ready explanation of the underlying beauty of the laws of nature"?

For atheism, this beauty is a surprising and wholly mysterious fact, and as Collins argues, no version of the multiverse is able to render this beauty unsurprising:

Regardless of whether there are multiverses, you and Collins don't have a clue about atheism, or anything else.

Multiverse advocates have failed to address the beauty of the laws of nature.

Wow, you're really off the deep end.

In the meantime, theists certainly have nothing to fear from any future scientific discovery showing that our cosmos may be embedded within some larger structure.

Of course you have nothing to fear. You religious zombies can modify your beliefs to fit anything. Or, you can modify anything to fit your beliefs. No matter what science ever finds, you IDiots will find a way to ignore the parts you don't like and will keep on believing in nonsense.

The beauty of the laws of nature offers eloquent testimony to the existence of a Designer of nature.

LMAO! And don't you mean god? Do you really think that you're fooling anyone sane with your dishonest labeling? Why do you capitalize the word designer? It's because you think of your chosen god as the designer, right? And you think that your chosen god deserves a capitalized label, right? Why do you IDiots try to fool people with your deceptive, dishonest labeling of who or what you believe is the designer?

I'm including a post by allanius, which is one of his/her responses to torley's article:

July 24, 2011 at 6:47 am

Uh, not to seem unusually dense, but beauty itself must be accounted for and is the strongest argument against materialism after the complexity of life.

There's no "seem" about it. You are undoubtedly dense.

The simple fact is that men cannot make anything as beautiful as that which already exists. Why is that? In art, for example, the best they can do is to imitate nature.

Even if that's true, which is debatable, so what?

Science has nothing to say about the beauty of nature or its origin—nothing.

Why should science say anything about the "beauty of nature" or the origin of the "beauty of nature"?

"That’s why scientists shouldn’t pretend to be philosophers."

You say that there are no living philosophers (below), which includes all of you IDiots. Do you consider yourself or any of the other IDiots as being "scientists"? Answer that questions (honestly) and I'll have more to say on the subject.

Darwin’s attempt to account for the astonishing beauty of living things through sexual selection is idiocy or high comedy—take your pick.

Are you basing your opinion of that on philosophy, or science? If science, what science (evidence/research/etc.)?

We know about the classical Greeks and their enthusiasm for beauty. We know that beauty was the ground of Plato’s argument for the existence of the good. Throughout history, until, oh, say 1850, this was a fact universally acknowledged, as Crazy Jane might say. Then clever men—the wise men of their age—decided they didn’t need God and negated him. “God is dead,” they cleverly said. The upshot? A 100 years of desolation and ugliness in the arts.

Uh Oh, Plato! Shades of kairosfartus.

Now it is true that the concepts of “the good” described by the philosophers were hopelessly divided between sense and intellect, or as we would say today, being and nothingness. The Nihilists were quite right to negate the god of Plato and Aristotle, which was intellect. Intellect is a dividing power and therefore cannot produce an undivided description of the good. Men cling to the idea that intellect is the good because they are in love with themselves and their own thinking.

That has what to do with the original topic? And I thought you IDiots say that ID has nothing to do with religion?

But the Nihilists threw the baby out with the bathwater. In their eagerness to kill God, they also killed beauty. It is impossible to account for the beauty of nature without God.

Impossible? Is "the beauty of nature" a scientific term? After all, ID is a 'scientific theory/inference', isn't it? Is there a mathematical equation that describes or defines "the beauty of nature"? And, again, I thought you IDiots say that ID has nothing to do with religion? Your real agenda is showing.

If “God is dead,” then the beauty that exists either has to be the product of sex (Darwin), or is an illusion (Sartre, Nausea et al), or we just happen to be the lucky blokes who won the universe lottery and got the pretty one (multiverse).

Huh? The choice is between a god or sex or an illusion?

There are no living philosophers. Not one. No one currently pretending to the title will obtain the cachet of a Plato or Aristotle for the simple reason that philosophy is the pursuit of happiness. The beauty of nature makes us happy. If we acknowledge it and start asking the questions Plato asked about it, philosophy is possible. Otherwise all we have is navel-gazing.

Well then, since, according to you, there are no living philosophers, what label would you apply to all the balderdash that is constantly spewed by you IDiots? It sure isn't science, and you say it isn't philosophy. It must be navel-gazing then. Thanks for admitting that.