You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from stu:
Not sure where you're getting somewhere from, except by confusing things.
The constants are observed. They are not observed to be tuned for life, except by some, mostly creationists, who merely claim they are tuned.
There is no scientific bases on which it is said the constants are tuned.
A Supernatural so called tuner god is not an option in science. It is just an option in the same way Pixie Poo is an option.
Multiverse can be anything from a quantumn field to Many-Worlds interpretation. Something natural. Hawking has proposed a possible approach for confirming which.
So it's not like that's anything to do with a so called "Tuner", which would be something supernatural and unnatural.
You are one of the few troll idiots left on the planet who is not aware that many of the top scientists say the constants are tuned for life. Even Dawkins raises the point with weinberg in the video you provided.
And Hawkings tell you that if you take a traditional approach the universe either looks fine tuned by an outside agency or you have to speculate everything is possilble in an inflationary universe.
That you do not comprehend the science is obvious.
Quote from Good1:
It's by design. The design is simply this: It is a combination of opposites. As such, it is a concept, not a reality. It is impossible to combine opposites, and if you try, you get what we've got while we continue to think what we've always thought.
By 'concept' i mean its a thought supported (proved) by a collection of thoughts. There is intent. The intent is to prove the concept is true. Either the mind that hosts the concept, or the concept itself, is fanatical about proving a falsehood/impossibility to be true and possible. A product of this fanaticism is what we call the human being...which inherits this same fanaticism in the powers of magic (as above so below). Magic comprises the entire realm of imagination. There, mental imagery takes concepts and supports them with yet more thoughts. These thoughts are like symbols. The next step toward "proof" is to form the thoughts into, well, thought forms! Poof! There is everything that was believed...now seen by a concept called an 'eyeball'. Proof!
Now, suppose someone disagrees with me. That would be more proof that the concept is basically about combining opposites into one thing. Let's allow man to be one thing for example. One man has what he believes is a truth and another man also believes he has a truth which cannot coexist with the others truth. This scenario is ubiquitous, and is supported by an environment which seems to offer each man adequate proof of his beliefs. No one really knows for sure. Some demand more evidence than others before devoting their mind to a preferred viewpoint. Still, we have an example of how the intent is to make opposites coexist. It can't be "proven" except in an environment entirely ruled by beliefs. Such is the realm of imagination, which includes the realm of science, which is about the observation of what imagination has already done with thoughts it has believed in.
To the extent that this seems possible, it supports what i've just said about the intent to prove it. To the extent that it does not seem possible, it also supports what i'm saying about the nature of reality. Reality and imagination cannot coexist...it's impossible. And yet, we seem able to accommodate that. Within imagination, we label some things "reality", and others "imagination"...and think we can tell the difference. But this would just be more proof of the level of fanaticism inherited by the mind of man from its maker. Man's maker is intent upon proving opposites can coexist. It doesn't care that it must resort to a deep level of deception in order to pull this off.
Quote from jem:
You are one of the few troll idiots left on the planet who is not aware that many of the top scientists say the constants are tuned for life. Even Dawkins raises the point with weinberg in the video you provided.
And Hawkings tell you that if you take a traditional approach the universe either looks fine tuned by an outside agency or you have to speculate everything is possilble in an inflationary universe.
That you do not comprehend the science is obvious.
No one including "top scientists" has ever supported with science the statement that the cosmological constants are tuned for life, or are tuned for anything else. Richard Dawkins raising the point is not Richard Dawkins saying the constants are fine tuned.
Stephen Hawkins says categorically no outside agency - no god required. So clearly you are not comprehending English never mind the science.
Quote from stu:
Stephen Hawkins says categorically no outside agency - no god required. So clearly you are not comprehending English never mind the science.
God required versus no God required.
Each side thinking it has the most authoritative evidence.
Each is calling its evidence proof.
Just more proof that the design is a concept that intentionally attempts to combine opposites into one thing...and prove it true. But all done within the realm of imagination + belief.
The design sets up an argument. To the extent that any mind continues to argue, it is caught up in the realm of imagination...trapped. This would seem to prove that opposites can coexist...held in one place as prisoners are held back by bars of belief.
So I forget, does "fine tuned" imply a "tuner"?
Quote from stu:
No one including "top scientists" has ever supported with science the statement that the cosmological constants are tuned for life, or are tuned for anything else. Richard Dawkins raising the point is not Richard Dawkins saying the constants are fine tuned.
Stephen Hawkins says categorically no outside agency - no god required. So clearly you are not comprehending English never mind the science.
1. You even misquote Hawkings. Hawking tells you our universe appears incredibly fine tuned. He speculates the tunings can be explained via a multiverse.
Now even a troll fool like you Stu must understand that the idea of a multiverse or a universe with other constants is pure conjecture.
2. Richard Dawkins travels the lecture circuit speaking on this subject. When he says some scientists say the universe appears fine tuned... either he is a troll or you are. See there are fine tunings and only few possible explanations. One is God.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I answered your first claim, which was an untrue claim.Quote from jem:
...top scientists say the constants are tuned...
...Hawking tells you our universe appears incredibly fine tuned...
...when he says some scientists say the universe appears fine tuned...
So make your mind up.
If you canât even make the distinction between the words are and appear then you're not going to understand much of anything Stephen Hawking says, including his comments about no need for a God/tuner/designer.
Trolling out the same old vids is really pathetic of you.
There is nothing in science to suggest the cosmological constants are tuned , fine tuned, or that there is or needs to be any outside agency to do any so called tuning.
1. Go ahead liar give a links to support your fraudulent Hawking statements. If hawking wrote the following... it means you just lied your ass off....
2. Tell you b.s. to hawking and hartle...
since I have quoted the whole passage dozens of times... let me quote the part that shows you to be liar...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
"...In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or
...
2. Tell you b.s. to hawking and hartle...
since I have quoted the whole passage dozens of times... let me quote the part that shows you to be liar...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
"...In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or
...
Quote from stu:
I answered your first claim, which was an untrue claim.
So make your mind up.
If you canât even make the distinction between the words are and appear then you're not going to understand much of anything Stephen Hawking says, including his comments about no need for a God/tuner/designer.
Trolling out the same old vids is really pathetic of you.
There is nothing in science to suggest the cosmological constants are tuned , fine tuned, or that there is or needs to be any outside agency to do any so called tuning.
You made this false claim. "...top scientists say the constants are tuned..."
You obviously need a god , but false claims, deceit and infantile insult is all you have to justify it.
Everyone knows, apparently except yourself , that Stephen Hawking states clearly and categorically , no god required to start the universe. Your designer/tuner is not even needed.
You will need to learn to stop using words like are and appears as if they mean the same thing before you can even start thinking of trying to properly understand what those "top scientists" are saying.
You obviously need a god , but false claims, deceit and infantile insult is all you have to justify it.
Everyone knows, apparently except yourself , that Stephen Hawking states clearly and categorically , no god required to start the universe. Your designer/tuner is not even needed.
You will need to learn to stop using words like are and appears as if they mean the same thing before you can even start thinking of trying to properly understand what those "top scientists" are saying.