I think you missed my earlier point in that Dr. England's work provides a better, albeit incomplete, explanation of the role of probability in the evolution of the universe.

"when you say that atheists simply reject the assertion, they are saying that there could never be a god."
When I reject the assertion, I'm saying "I've never seen any evidence of that." I'm not saying it never could have happened or I'm on the fence about whether it happened. I've just seen nothing like that.

I think you're saying the nature of the universe suggests a conscious architect and that's the evidence. That actually feels right to me too, but then I consider that if things hadn't been just right I wouldn't be here wondering about it.

"Just because someone asserts a god doesn't mean I have to accept it as valid enough to say there could never be a god." Khalling, this statement demonstrates your intelligence. However, when you say that atheists simply reject the assertion, they are saying that there could never be a god.

While there is no proof for witches or goblins or fairies, there is a universe that exists, along with all of its intricate details on the nano, the micro, the milli, the kilometer scales all the way up to the size of the universe. How did that get there? Is not every offspring of every intelligent life form the result of a volitional, conscious decision of its predecessors? Such an offspring has been created. In fact, what in the universe was not created?

"I do not need you, or anyone else"
No!!! I am calling you **the opposite** of a Ayn Rand villain, i.e. like an Ayn Rand hero in this one respect.

I'm saying you're the opposite of a villain b/c you're not swayed by group approval.

If I do a coin toss a hundred times, and I predict the entire sequence prior to the first toss, that's amazing. What are the chances I could just guess right? They're astronomical. I could do the tosses without predicting, get some random sequence, and then ask, "what are the chances that particular sequence should come up?" Well, it was astronomical too, but it's not surprising. Some sequence was going to come up. It doesn't mean everything was just perfect for that sequence.

"What is remarkable is that the universe is tailor made for human development. Does that seem like an accident? "
This is the anthropic principle. One in a universe, time, and place that supports sentient life will sentient life appear and possibly ask, "Is it just a coincidence that everything's so perfect for us to develop here?" All the times and places that don't support the development of sentient life will have no sentient life there to wonder about.

I will stand corrected on one point. Agnosticism is not the right description of what should be the default position. The default position should be that there is much that we do not know, and perhaps are incapable of knowing or understanding. Either theism or atheism makes a positive statement that cannot be easily proven.

Call me a villain if you like.
I do not need you, or anyone else.

You are correct in that if the universe were not suitable for human development, we would not have developed. What is remarkable is that the universe is suitable for human development at all. The number of things that had to go right for any life, let alone conscious human development, is in the hundreds of major events. The probability of all of those things to "just happen" is lower than any calculator can go.

What is remarkable is that the universe is tailor made for human development. Does that seem like an accident?

If you watch the video of his lecture you will see (at the end) the kind of experiments his group is doing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz...

"Agnosticism" means that when confronted with the arbitrary, meaningless or contradictory you aren't sure if you should take it seriously rather than reject it out of hand for what it is.

Dramatic statements of independence while pronouncing common place age-old religious speculation in meaningless platitudes with floating abstractions does not make them correct.

Ayn Rand's support of the virtue of independence was integrated with other virtues like rationality and objectivity. She did not endorse the arbitrary in the name of independence.

He is begging the question with a floating abstraction.

There is a sense in which humans are remarkable, but it's not because anything was tailor made for us. If the universe were not suitable for human development we would not have developed. That we have does not imply an animistic "plan".

JB: "If there are no 'odds' in the evolution of the universe, then it must have been rationally designed by a being of intelligence. You contradict your own argument."

That is a false alternative as has already been explained. Creationism versus random is a false alternative. You have previously been referred to Dawkins' explanation of that in Darwinian evolution. I did not contradict my own argument. You contradict it through unresponsive repetition.

In addition, when someone asserts something meaningless and contradictory you can rationally respond that it cannot be.

The assumption that atheism's statement of no "odds" in the evolution of the universe is not contradictory. It also does not logically track to then jump and say that because there is a complex order, there must be a higher intelligence. There are extremely complicated tools made by humans that not one single human on their own could make, and since we have no way of detecting or predicting a higher power these things were clearly created by humans. No one knows how to make a smart phone, yet somehow we have them...
An interesting statement used by many however complexity does not equal higher intelligence, and if one makes that argument the burden of proof is upon them to prove how the two are connected.

Moving on to how atheism needs to provide proof for the statement of the fact that there is no intelligence for what exists, there is in fact no proof needed for this statement. It is actually setup to receive proof to the contrary, it is asserting what knowledge our universe has given us and the universe has yet to give any proof for a higher intelligence, therefore we can naturally assume that there is not one unless proof is provided otherwise.

Agnosticism is anti-logic, where no matter what evidence is provided one has no idea about anything still. You are correct it requires no proof because agnosticism is in fact not a statement at all contrary to the two most popular understandings, (god, no god).

In summary the irony in this argument is that by assuming that there is a higher intelligence it is actually the only one that requires a burden of proof because one is assuming that there is intelligence, while not having any evidence to proof the statement or refute statements to the contrary since like what has already been elaborated on there is no proof to give.

"I am perfectly willing to stand on the island by myself and be correct."
Yes! The opposite of that is the Ayn Rand villains who look to their group to work out what they think.

I agree with every word of that. People ask me then why don't we say "agnostic". The answer is to me that means I'm asserting god is unknowable or that I'm feeling wishy-washy. You could call our position "weak atheism", but that doesn't sound right. I won't even comment on calling us "brights". We just reject the assertion, as I would reject any unproven myth.

"If there are no "odds" in the evolution of the universe, then it must have been rationally designed by a being of intelligence."
Why do you say that? Isn't it just the anthropic principle? It's unremarkable that humans would find themselves in a universe that seems tailor made for humans to develop in it.

I disagree. Just because someone asserts a god doesn 't mean I have to accept it as valid enough to say there could never be a god. Atheists simply reject the assertion. There is
no compelling evidence to ponder. Like there is no proof for witches or goblins or fairies

perhaps, but he is one person and the technique does not seem to be limited to a certain height.

The universe exists. Period. No statement must be made or validated about existence with or without "purpose" to recognize that we start with an understanding that existence exists and consciousness is aware of it.

There is no unexamined premise denying purpose in existence. Purpose is an attribute of consciousness, not existence, and the concept of purpose logically presupposes both concepts in the proper hierarchy. To attribute purpose as inherent in all forms of existence whether or not man-made is a misuse of the concepts and their logical dependency. It commits the fallacy of the stolen concept several ways at once.

You really should ready Ayn Rand's non-fiction instead of making incorrect claims about premises she allegedly did not examine.

To jump from "Everything that you, I, and anyone else creates has a purpose" to "It would be completely beyond reason to say that a star, the earth, water, or anything else would just exist ... with no purpose" is an arbitrary and contradictory leap invoking primitive animism asserting a primacy of consciousness over existence, defying the meaning of all the concepts employed.

Intentionally "loading the terminology" with animism in your contradictory speculation of whatever you want to call god, but won't name, and built into your conclusion only emphasizes the fallacy. The burden of explanation and proof is on you when you make assertions. Theism, whether or not acknowledged by using the word "god", is not a rational "premise" and is not inherent in the concept of existence. It is meaningless and contradictory in its misuse of basic concepts turned on their heads and has no evidence supporting it even as a rationalistic floating abstraction. "Premises" are not to be made arbitrarily and without regard to the meaning and hierarchical dependency of concepts based on our perception of reality.

Rejecting theism, which is the meaning of atheism, is not an equally irrational premise. It is also not a primary. It is a simple consequence of the burden of proof principle rejecting the arbitrary and the conceptually meaningless.

Contrary to your assertion, the "argument from design", especially in the crude form of your intentional building in the conclusion, has been refuted and explained many, many times -- right here in this forum and long before Ayn Rand. You really should read about the history of western philosophy before making assertions about what you claim has never been done. Classical "proofs of god" can even be found explained as examples of rationalistic logical fallacies.

You should also read the science, including the Dawkins book already recommended above. Darwinian evolution is not consistent with a "master plan". There were several hypotheses of evolution before Darwin and he specifically formulated his principles in opposition to any teleology. Darwinian evolution as part of a "master plan" is a contradiction in terms.

Misuse of the concepts of "accident", "odds", "fruitful", "purpose", "plan", etc., followed by neglect of the onus of proof principle and assertions of a supernatural planner (or purpose without a planner) you can't even name, let alone meaningfully relate to reality or prove, certainly is mysticism. Cloaking it in appeals to being a materials scientist who understands differential equations, entropy and the rest does not make your metaphysical rationalizations scientific or rational. Your assertions are loaded with crude fallacies and naive misconceptions about philosophy and the science of evolution. You are out of our realm, but one does not have to be an expert or have above average intelligence to understand this. But it takes reading and understanding, not speculating on a web forum in terms no better than a college dorm room BS session.

While impressive, Stonehenge's pillars are MUCH higher.

If there are no "odds" in the evolution of the universe, then it must have been rationally designed by a being of intelligence. You contradict your own argument.

Moreover, atheism is asserting a "positive" statement that there is no being of intelligence responsible for what exists. There is a burden of proof to that statement as well. The only claim that does not require proof is agnosticism. This is a battle that you and your supporters are in error about, and the one major failing in the otherwise fine logic of Ms. Rand.

No matter how many people give thumbs up to your argument, I am perfectly willing to stand on the island by myself and be correct. That was the case several times for me in grade school, and will be true again in several of my endeavors.