Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[jem]

oh here it is in context...

Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. 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. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences[citation needed]. Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.


So now we can argue about whether evidence has to be scientific evidence and now whether it

"may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism."


I suspect you now realize you did not quite understand evidence.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

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.

I bet you so wish just one word of that were true.
Unless of course you are completely delusional and actually believe it is.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Who defines the legal criteria for legal evidence?

Scientists? Nope.

Who defines the scientific criteria for scientific evidence be?

Lawyers? Nope.

So who defines what would scientific evidence of design?

A few scientists who say, "Yes, it looks designed."

Same as people who honestly say, "It looks like the sun is revolving around the earth" is not a scientific definition of the actual movement of our solar system, so too a few scientists who offer their honest view...but not a scientific view.

Sorry, but you lose on this one.

There is no scientific evidence of design, nor is there scientific evidence of non design, as the criteria by which scientific evidence could actually be defined, does not exist. From within a system, it is not scientifically possible, or logically possible to know with an empirical certainty causation of a system. There is no objectivity within the system.

Just as observation on a QM level impacts the observation and renders the concept of pure objective measurement at that level impossible, there are some things that can be guessed at, speculated upon...but the speculations and guesses are not scientific evidence, they are only perhaps more educated guesses than a layman.

Only outside of the universe, if that exists, could one observe the process of a beginning of a universe, and perhaps see a deeper level of causation.

Quote from jem:

oh here it is in context...

Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. 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. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences[citation needed]. Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.


So now we can argue about whether evidence has to be scientific evidence and now whether it

"may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism."


I suspect you now realize you did not quite understand evidence.

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Who defines the legal criteria for legal evidence?

Scientists? Nope.

Who defines the scientific criteria for scientific evidence be?

Lawyers? Nope.

So who defines what would scientific evidence of design?

A few scientists who say, "Yes, it looks designed."

Same as people who honestly say, "It looks like the sun is revolving around the earth" is not a scientific definition of the actual movement of our solar system, so too a few scientists who offer their honest view...but not a scientific view.

Sorry, but you lose on this one.

There is no scientific evidence of design, nor is there scientific evidence of non design, as the criteria by which scientific evidence could actually be defined, does not exist. From within a system, it is not scientifically possible, or logically possible to know with an empirical certainty causation of a system. There is no objectivity within the system.

Just as observation on a QM level impacts the observation and renders the concept of pure objective measurement at that level impossible, there are some things that can be guessed at, speculated upon...but the speculations and guesses are not scientific evidence, they are only perhaps more educated guesses than a layman.

Only outside of the universe, if that exists, could one observe the process of a beginning of a universe, and perhaps see a deeper level of causation.

Let me fill you in.
The question is easy... is there evidence.

In law school my favorite professor said this...

a. when the law is on our side argue the law
b. when the facts are on your side argue the facts
c. when neither are on our side... bang the table and make a lot of noise

you just opted for c... for the second or third time.

First you tried to change the discussion from "evidence" to "scientific evidence".

but, I showed your definition to be out of context.

Now you are trying to make this about law vs science.

but I never argued a legal definition here.

you are just banging the table an making a lot of noise.


If you and stu wish to prove there is no evidence... first you have to understand information the scientists are using.

If you understood... you would cease your silly arguments.



I know one thing for sure. You don't because you are afraid to answer the question.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

I bet you so wish just one word of that were true.
Unless of course you are completely delusional and actually believe it is.

i might get concerned about your troll like responses...

if you ever addressed science or fact... but once again it is science vs the ramblings of Stu and a few of his sock puppets.


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: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t 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.”

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

i might get concerned about your troll like responses...

if you ever addressed science or fact... but once again it is science vs the ramblings of Stu and a few of his sock puppets.


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: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t 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.”

…..that'll be why you are always banging the table?
The "favorite professor" might have been better teaching you how to spell essential legal words properly and suggesting you go find the facts when you haven't any.

Problem is you can't deal with the responses so you just repost the same old stuff time after time
That really is a very unintelligent thing to do.

I've said before there is no science whatsoever in that quote attributed to Bernard Carr.

There is nothing scientific about intelligent design either.

So what you going to do.....just post it again.. and again?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Is there evidence of some scientists saying "the universe looks designed."

Yes.

Is that evidence of design?

Nope.

Not logically, and not scientifically.

Sorry, but your law professor was not professor of science.

Look, this really isn't that difficult.

Does the run rise in the east?

Yes or no.

Answer that question, and you will be on the track to understanding why there is no evidence of design.

There is appearance of what we as humans think of as design, true. But appearances are deceptive in many cases.

A solid block of iron is solid on its own level, but it is not solid at a quantum level. So two realities exist, it is all a function of the point of view and the level being discussed. Far too many people make mistakes because they reason from one level as if it were the same as a different level...and it just isn't logical to do that.

This is not to say I am an atheist, siding with stu, or anything like that. I am a theist, and I believe in design, but I would never say there is scientific evidence of design...just as there is no scientific evidence of non design.

I personally think people like you give the argument (not evidence) for design a bad name. Your emotionalism is the problem, you can't stay unemotional in these discussions, you lose it, which is not something that a reasonable person is generally going to do.

I don't think design can be proved, nor do I think non-designed can be proved, so my focus is to demonstrate the non-design and design are equivalents...in as much that really don't know, and can't know, so there is no reason to propose either one as scientific.

Quote from jem:

Let me fill you in.
The question is easy... is there evidence.

In law school my favorite professor said this...

a. when the law is on our side argue the law
b. when the facts are on your side argue the facts
c. when neither are on our side... bang the table and make a lot of noise

you just opted for c... for the second or third time.

First you tried to change the discussion from "evidence" to "scientific evidence".

but, I showed your definition to be out of context.

Now you are trying to make this about law vs science.

but I never argued a legal definition here.

you are just banging the table an making a lot of noise.


If you and stu wish to prove there is no evidence... first you have to understand information the scientists are using.

If you understood... you would cease your silly arguments.



I know one thing for sure. You don't because you are afraid to answer the question.

 

[jem]

aaah mr. carr, next time could you explain that you don't really mean the fine tuning of the constants can't be explained without a tuner or a multiverse. you see zzz and stu say you do not have an evidence. They won't explain why... because they remain ignorant of the science... but they just do not like what you are saying so you can not have any evidence.



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: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t 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.”

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Fine tuning of the constants...a theory, not a fact.

You are as bad as they are jem, you just don't see it yet.

From one of the sites that you probably visit.

"Fine Tuning?

Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe. By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.

Rich Deem

Deem is as much of a hack as Hitchens is. There are so many assumptions in just the above short paragraph, it is just silly.

You can not say factually or scientifically it was by design, logically it could have been by chance. There is no way to even calculate the odds...another impossibility. Our universe would "have been expected to consist of merely thermal radiation?" By whom? Hack, hack, hack.

You are just picking some model that "works" without the ability to prove it, predict the future, know the past, or anything else.

Hack science at the very best...just as it is essentially hack science to assume random forces were at work.

Write this in golden letters...science does not know the answers, there is no scientific fact that can establish the answer, there is no reference point of science to establish the answers.

Hold whatever faith you like, but you are butchering up the simplicity of showing the non design argument has no logical nor scientific foundation...which doesn't make the design argument true either...but it ends the silly debate of trying to use science to establish God or non God.

The reality could be easily, and likely beyond our ability to understand.

Why is it that we can't even solve the common cold...yet people think we can figure out how the universe, which we don't even know if had a beginning, came to be.

I actually feel sad for you that your faith is not enough...

Quote from jem:

aaah mr. carr next time could you explain that you dont really mean the fine tuning of the constants can't be explained without a tuner or a multiverse. you see zzz and stu say you do not have an evidence. They won't explain why... because they remain ignorant of the science... but they just do not like what you are saying so you can not have any evidence.



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: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t 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.”

 

[jem]

Ah Mr Suskind co founder of string theory...
could you explain why you make statements zzz does not understand.


"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."