# Best Responses to New Atheists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682 "2010-10-01T02:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/321 "2010-10-06T13:04:22Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > But if it doesn’t _need_ intent, or intelligence, why would you assume it has? > > Well, if you look at what was “caused” to come in to existence, namely a whole bunch of components with a a high degree of elegance and functionality, the inference is, I believe, design. We don’t ever see high amounts of elegance and functionality on things we know aren’t designed. Your argument kind of hinges on this, I think. What high degree of elegance and functionality are you thinking of exactly when you think of the universe? And you don’t see elegance and functionality in animals or flowers f.i.? We know they weren’t designed. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/322 "2010-10-06T13:04:56Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Or.. please show evidence that the other universe you are positing existed. There isn’t any? Then no reason to believe in it. Isn’t that argument at least, if not more, applicable to the concept of God? The point with whatever is before the ‘universe creation event’ is that it could be anything, or nothing. Our entire universe could have been shat out by purple hippo living in a unverse with 2 spacial dimensions and 3 time-dimensions and where skinny jeans made people actually look _good_. There is simply no way of knowing, since it was outside our universe. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/323 "2010-10-06T13:33:35Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Also doesn’t need not have it. It also doesn’t need to not have six thousand hairy balls, but if there’s no reason to think that it needs them then Occam rules it out. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/324 "2010-10-06T13:35:12Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > No it wouldn’t, it just means this other universe was actually the “first” universe, that universe would still be bound by time, hence, need a beginning. So this creator entity isn’t “bound by time”? What does that even mean? Something that doesn’t change with time, well, isn’t capable of change, like making a decision or taking an action I would think. But then again I’m not so sure what to think about something that isn’t “bound by time.” Can you flesh that out a little? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/325 "2010-10-06T13:37:14Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Well, if you look at what was “caused” to come in to existence, namely a whole bunch of components with a a high degree of elegance and functionality, the inference is, I believe, design. We don’t ever see high amounts of elegance and functionality on things we know aren’t designed. > > Except for eveything in the universe you mean? _ **Obviously if you start from the premise that everything elegant is designed** _, there won’t be anything left that is elegant and not-designed. > > That’s not a proof, it’s a failure of logic. Nope. As stated, I start with things I _know_ are designed. Then I look to see if I can find elegant and functional things that I know _aren’t_ designed. Then I draw inferences about what elegance and functionality are signs **of**. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/326 "2010-10-06T13:40:00Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Nope. As stated, I start with things I _know_ are designed. Then I look to see if I can find elegant and functional things that I know _aren’t_ designed. Then I draw inferences about what elegance and functionality are signs **of**. But if you assume a designer that created everything, you _can’t_ find anything that isn’t designed. At least I think that that was the point. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/327 "2010-10-06T13:40:38Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Nope. As stated, I start with things I _know_ are designed. Then I look to see if I can find elegant and functional things that I know _aren’t_ designed. Then I draw inferences about what elegance and functionality are signs **of**. So, uh, life? I mean, as a Deist, you don’t believe Jesus rode dinosaurs, right? So how is life, the result of random natural processes, not elegant and functional? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/328 "2010-10-06T13:41:01Z")
Neither “elegance,” nor functionality require “design.” There is zero evidence of design in the universe outside of whatever is designed by animals on earth. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/329 "2010-10-06T13:41:23Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Well, if you look at what was “caused” to come in to existence, namely a whole bunch of components with a a high degree of elegance and functionality, the inference is, I believe, design. We don’t ever see high amounts of elegance and functionality on things we know aren’t designed. > > Your argument kind of hinges on this, I think. > What high degree of elegance and functionality are you thinking of exactly when you think of the universe? > > And you don’t see elegance and functionality in animals or flowers f.i.? > We know they weren’t designed. I sure do - but we don’t know whether DNA replication with a small chance of a beneficial mutation is a designed process. We don’t even know if life can arise spontaneously from non-living matter. Hence, you can not say that we know flowers and animals weren’t “designed”. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/330 "2010-10-06T13:42:52Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I sure do - but we don’t know whether DNA replication with a small chance of a beneficial mutation is a designed process. We don’t even know if life can arise spontaneously from non-living matter. Hence, you can not say that we know flowers and animals weren’t “designed”. See #326 ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/331 "2010-10-06T13:43:45Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > No it wouldn’t, it just means this other universe was actually the “first” universe, that universe would still be bound by time, hence, need a beginning. > > So this creator entity isn’t “bound by time”? What does that even mean? > > Something that doesn’t change with time, well, isn’t capable of change, like making a decision or taking an action I would think. But then again I’m not so sure what to think about something that isn’t “bound by time.” Can you flesh that out a little? If something isn’t bound by time, then it isn’t undergoing any sort of before-and-after change. A creator deity could be in a constant state of creating, decision-making, etc. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/332 "2010-10-06T13:44:45Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Nope. As stated, I start with things I _know_ are designed. Then I look to see if I can find elegant and functional things that I know _aren’t_ designed. Then I draw inferences about what elegance and functionality are signs **of**. > > But if you assume a designer that created everything, you _can’t_ find anything that isn’t designed. At least I think that that was the point. But I don’t start by assuming a designer created everything. I start with something that I know is designed (like a windmill). ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/333 "2010-10-06T13:45:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Neither “elegance,” nor functionality require “design.” There is zero evidence of design in the universe outside of whatever is designed by animals on earth. Please give an example of something that we **know** is not designed, that is both highly elegant and highly functional. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/334 "2010-10-06T13:46:53Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > I sure do - but we don’t know whether DNA replication with a small chance of a beneficial mutation is a designed process. We don’t even know if life can arise spontaneously from non-living matter. Hence, you can not say that we know flowers and animals weren’t “designed”. > > See #326 See #332. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/335 "2010-10-06T13:47:23Z")
“Elegant” is an aesthetic and doesn’t mean anything scientifically. A nice rock is functional for many things and is not designed. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/336 "2010-10-06T13:48:41Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Please give an example of something that we **know** is not designed, that is both highly elegant and highly functional. Octopus eye. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/337 "2010-10-06T13:49:29Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Neither “elegance,” nor functionality require “design.” There is zero evidence of design in the universe outside of whatever is designed by animals on earth. > > Please give an example of something that we **know** is not designed, that is both highly elegant and highly functional. Oh come on. By your standards, we know nothing is not designed. You said life doesn’t count because even though there is a completely well understood natural mechanism for life to evolve, and it requires no design or supernatural elements whatsoever, you say you can’t prove god didn’t secretly design it that way without evidence even though involving god is completely unnecesary. So you just said that nothing can be proven not to have been designed, and now you’re demanding to know what we think isn’t designed. This is just juevenile. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/338 "2010-10-06T13:50:49Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Please give an example of something that we **know** is not designed, that is both highly elegant and highly functional. > > Octopus eye. Bzzz. Try again! We don’t know if the DNA replication process is designed, nor do we know if life can even arise spontaneously from non-living matter to get the thing in motion. Both are pre-requisites to get to octopus eye. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/339 "2010-10-06T13:51:59Z")
By your criteria, what do we know not to be designed? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/340 "2010-10-06T13:52:26Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > See #326 > > See #332. Nope. If the universe is designed, there is NOTHING that isn’t designed, hence you cannot compare designed objects against undesigned objects, since there are only designed objects. It’s pure circular logic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=18)