It sounds absolutely absurd, that's how it is
i'll deal with your rest shortly, a little busy. (i trade a dozen markets!)
stu, LOGIN!
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
It sounds absolutely absurd, that's how it is
i'll deal with your rest shortly, a little busy. (i trade a dozen markets!)
stu, LOGIN!
I schooled you and a bunch of your clown friends on the hearsay rule. cite was a typo and I have educated you on fine tunings.
After five years, I have dozens of scientists saying that we either looked designed or we have multiple universes. At first you were claiming I was misrepresenting the argument. But, now so many say it, you look like an emotional atheist.
what is you definition of evidence? as it can't possible be the typical dictionary definition.
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
because otherwise I would not be able to find myraid quotes like these...
bernard carr's. see below.
Unless that guy is as delusional as an ET atheist... he could not be making that statement unless he sees evidence of a tuner in the tunings.
I realize this is a logical leap Stu can't make... but if you are presented with a universe which looks finely tuned.... you have evidence of a tuning. Which is evidence of a tuner... until you find a better explanation.
Some scientists speculate there may be almost infinite universes but as richter said if you almost infinite universes you will have santa claus and zeus in at least one of them.
Programming of Life
by Donald E. Johnson
Programming of Life explores the informational aspects of life that are usually overlooked or ignored in chemical and biological evolutionary scenarios. Each cell of an organism has thousands (or millions) of interacting computers reading and processing digital information using algorithmic digital programs and
digital codes to communicate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and each must be investigated using that domain's principles. Donald E. Johnson, with Ph.Ds in Chemistry, Information Theory and Computer Science, is uniquely qualified to unpack the strong parallels between everyday cybernetic design and engineering and the workings of the
cell.
by Donald E. Johnson
Programming of Life explores the informational aspects of life that are usually overlooked or ignored in chemical and biological evolutionary scenarios. Each cell of an organism has thousands (or millions) of interacting computers reading and processing digital information using algorithmic digital programs and
digital codes to communicate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and each must be investigated using that domain's principles. Donald E. Johnson, with Ph.Ds in Chemistry, Information Theory and Computer Science, is uniquely qualified to unpack the strong parallels between everyday cybernetic design and engineering and the workings of the
cell.
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Of course it sounds absurd to you, the same way a Newtonian thinker would respond to quantum physics would think that ideas was absurd.
A solid block of granite.
Is it solid or not?
Try to answer that.
(I see you are needing another gulp of stujism to help you...)
A solid block of granite.
Is it solid or not?
Try to answer that.
(I see you are needing another gulp of stujism to help you...)
Quote from killthesunshine:
It sounds absolutely absurd, that's how it is
i'll deal with your rest shortly, a little busy. (i trade a dozen markets!)
stu, LOGIN!
My definition of scientific evidence is not the same as evidence in a courtroom.
In a courtroom, eye witness testimony is evidence, but an eye witness alone is not sufficient to be considered evidence in any real science.
In a courtroom, eye witness testimony is evidence, but an eye witness alone is not sufficient to be considered evidence in any real science.
Not my definition, but it works:
"Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry."
The eye witness evidence is the sun appears to move around the earth, if we simply look to the sun move from our eye witness view...
The point of view derived from scientific evidence is opposite of that natural eye witness view.
You could have all scientists agree that the universe appears to be designed, but that is not a scientific test of design.
"Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry."
The eye witness evidence is the sun appears to move around the earth, if we simply look to the sun move from our eye witness view...
The point of view derived from scientific evidence is opposite of that natural eye witness view.
You could have all scientists agree that the universe appears to be designed, but that is not a scientific test of design.