Intelligent Design is not creationism

1. I like your little misdirection about zeus.... clever. Substituting some specific idea to stand in place of the idea of a tuner.... is a very good rhetorical device. We have seen Dawkins pull that little misdirection a lot.

You are getting close to understanding the science now. You seem to be implicitly conceding that many scientists state our universe appears tuned. --- that is a big first step away from ignorance and towards science for you.

2. Now all you have to do is realize that at the moment a tuner is no more super natural than a infinite unseen, unproven untested universes.

3. Finally, ( I do not expect you to be capable of getting this far) And to anyone without a bias, given the current state of science, a tuner is the most obvious explanation for tunings.







Quote from stu:

Susskind is right. God is an option, as is Zeus an option, just as Fairy Dust is an option.
However, were any of those options capable of turning into possibilities, then all of them are possibilities, as much as any other supernatural concepts are.

"Luck, megaverse/ multiverse, someday find a theory of everything" are not supernatural concepts. They have the potential to be scientifically confirmed. Unlike supernatural things, which although sometimes can be made to sound intruiging, though not by you, amount to no more than convoluted mind burps.

Nevertheless, infantile insult is obviously the option you prefer to revert to, giving little to no possibility you're going to be anything but very angry and irrational because there is no place for your so called tuner/designer in science. Except perhaps in areas of study which can determine why some humans' are overly susceptible to the superstition of religion.
More...
 
Quote from jem:



2. Now all you have to do is realize that at the moment a tuner is no more super natural than a infinite unseen, unproven untested universes.
.
More...


A tuner ?

There may be some far-out scientific theories out there but none of them include the idea of a tuner even though the universe "appears" to be fine tuned.

Just because some of those theories seem unbelievable, the idea of a "God" or "tuner" does not then become more believable. It remains in the realm of faith alone, and the super natural.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

A tuner ?

There may be some far-out scientific theories out there but none of them include the idea of a tuner even though the universe "appears" to be fine tuned.

Just because some of those theories seem unbelievable, the idea of a "God" or "tuner" does not then become more believable. It remains in the realm of faith alone, and the super natural.
More...

IOW: You have no clue but you'll wildly speculate anyway.
 
Evolution/Big Bang is wildly speculative. The proponents don't understand that sometimes, sometimes they do but they insist they have science on their side and everybody else is in the horrible grip of "blind faith".

Evolution is comforting to people that don't want to answer to God, it lets them off the hook. So does the idea that man invented God instead of the other way around.. and that a happy religious person is that way due to psychological reasons... and the idea that the Bible is purely myth is also very comforting to people.. The thing is if one investigates the other side of the story one finds that the Bible is an amazing document, that religious people are living a little different existence and that creation is amazing and couldn't have happened by accident, not even in the timeline the evolution nuts posit..
 
Quote from Eight:

Evolution/Big Bang is wildly speculative. The proponents don't understand that sometimes, sometimes they do but they insist they have science on their side and everybody else is in the horrible grip of "blind faith".

Evolution is comforting to people that don't want to answer to God, it lets them off the hook. So does the idea that man invented God instead of the other way around.. and that a happy religious person is that way due to psychological reasons... and the idea that the Bible is purely myth is also very comforting to people.. The thing is if one investigates the other side of the story one finds that the Bible is an amazing document, that religious people are living a little different existence and that creation is amazing and couldn't have happened by accident, not even in the timeline the evolution nuts posit..
More...


Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution in this day and age are ignorant, stupid, delusional or some combination of the three. Period.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution in this day and age are ignorant, stupid, delusional or some combination of the three. Period.
More...

ok Mr. Pastuer

show us where science has proof we evolved from non life here on earth.

I can grant that once life was formed we have had some evolution.

But life evolving from non life by random chance... that is (so far) a fairy tale.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

A tuner ?

There may be some far-out scientific theories out there but none of them include the idea of a tuner even though the universe "appears" to be fine tuned.

Just because some of those theories seem unbelievable, the idea of a "God" or "tuner" does not then become more believable. It remains in the realm of faith alone, and the super natural.
More...


its funny how you atheists can read science and then lie about it.

here it is again.


...
1. 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 it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

from the hawking and hartle paper...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf


2. "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.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t 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 “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t 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
 
Quote from jem:
1. I like your little misdirection about zeus.... clever. Substituting some specific idea to stand in place of the idea of a tuner.... is a very good rhetorical device. We have seen Dawkins pull that little misdirection a lot.
More...
Zeus, God, what's the difference? Both a God, both supernatural.

Quote from jem:
You are getting close to understanding the science now. You seem to be implicitly conceding that many scientists state our universe appears tuned. --- that is a big first step away from ignorance and towards science for you.
More...
The one with a problem with scientists saying the universe appears fine tuned has always been you, not I. You can't seem to grasp how it is not a scientific statement.
The scientific question is, why are the cosmological constants the values they are. Nothing else.

There is no science in any assumptions that there is, could be, or needs to be a so called 'fine tuned' universe, by a so called 'fine tuner', who just happens to be God. It's religious idealists who are happy to make up, live with, and own that deceit. It's not science.

Quote from jem:
2. Now all you have to do is realize that at the moment a tuner is no more super natural than a infinite unseen, unproven untested universes.
More...
The 'tuner' you are pitching for is supernatural. It's called God. It is supernatural.

Mutiverse is a proposed mathematical solution, albeit a tenuous one. It is therefore of course not supernatural.

Quote from jem:
3. Finally, ( I do not expect you to be capable of getting this far) And to anyone without a bias, given the current state of science, a tuner is the most obvious explanation for tunings.
More...
If a tuner is the most obvious explanation, then a tuner is gravity. One of your fav scientists, who you like to constantly misrepresent so much, says so.
 
1. Put your Hawking quote in context...
it is explained in the paper I quote below. Gravity explains the tunings in a multiverse coupled with top down cosmology. read the paper I have quoted it to you dozens of times. Try the intro if you do not understand it.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

2. regarding supernatural.

The concept of a second universe or a multiverse is just an idea... there is no evidence for it. It is beyond the observable universe... therefore by definition it is supernatural.


3. 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 it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

from the hawking and hartle paper...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf


4. "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.”



http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137


Quote from stu:

Zeus, God, what's the difference? Both a God, both supernatural.


The one with a problem with scientists saying the universe appears fine tuned has always been you, not I. You can't seem to grasp how it is not a scientific statement.
The scientific question is, why are the cosmological constants the values they are. Nothing else.

There is no science in any assumptions that there is, could be, or needs to be a so called 'fine tuned' universe, by a so called 'fine tuner', who just happens to be God. It's religious idealists who are happy to make up, live with, and own that deceit. It's not science.


The 'tuner' you are pitching for is supernatural. It's called God. It is supernatural.

Mutiverse is a proposed mathematical solution, albeit a tenuous one. It is therefore of course not supernatural.


If a tuner is the most obvious explanation, then a tuner is gravity. One of your fav scientists, who you like to constantly misrepresent so much, says so.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top