Intelligent Design is not creationism

[stu]

Quote from jem:
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

If I were being overly generous I'd suggest you are forever trying to squeeze a tuner God out of the Hawking/Hartle paper because you don't understand it.

But there's little not to understand in what Stephen Hawking says here.

• 
  Stephen Hawking:
  "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
  
  "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

You're missing something. You're reading a suggestion of tuner God where it cannot be.

Quote the above as many times as you have the Hawking/Hartle paper, then you may start to see things in their a proper light.
But I won't bet on it.

 

[jem]

quote your source troll... put your quote in context.
you have been pulling this same shit for months.

you know know damn well that your quote is conditioned on the idea of a multiverse or string landscape.

Your concept comes for his book which comes right after the paper I am quoting. As is the paper - your quote is is conditioned on the almost infinite solutions string theory provides for the string landscape... which is the multiverse. The multiverse is used to explain why our universe can appear to be so finely tuned.


Why do you lie your ass and misrepresent science stu.

Quote from stu:

If I were being overly generous I'd suggest you are forever trying to squeeze a tuner God out of the Hawking/Hartle paper because you don't understand it.

But there's little not to understand in what Stephen Hawking says here.

• 
  Stephen Hawking:
  "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
  
  "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

You're missing something. You're reading a suggestion of tuner God where it cannot be.

Quote the above as many times as you have the Hawking/Hartle paper, then you may start to see things in their a proper light.
But I won't bet on it.

 

[jcl]

I have the impression that you guys are discussing like medieval monks: you exchange quotes and counter-quotes from authorities and argue about the meaning of those quotes.

The topic discussed is not really very complex. How about omitting all those links to and quotes from authorities and giving some real arguments instead? This would probably not lead to a solution either, but would at least be a scientific discussion.

 

[Good1]

I have abandoned this thread. I don't even check in.

Bye.

 

[stu]

Quote from jcl:
I have the impression that you guys are discussing like medieval monks: you exchange quotes and counter-quotes from authorities and argue about the meaning of those quotes.

Jeez, I post one quote which directly contradicts the post posted a thousand times as an authority. Suddenly you get an impression it's all "quotes and counter quotes".

Quote from jcl:
The topic discussed is not really very complex. How about omitting all those links to and quotes from authorities and giving some real arguments instead? This would probably not lead to a solution either, but would at least be a scientific discussion.

Can you kindly advise what's not real about my argument, which is basically that a tuner/god/designer is supernatural, and the supernatural as explanation for the universe, does not belong in science?

However, since when did you assume those who take the role of creationist want to discuss science?
The approach is to misrepresent , change wording and misunderstand science as essential prerequisites to invoke ideas of a supernatural designer. Surely you noticed that?

But you do have a point. Mention actually discussing the science, and one God hippy ran for the hills.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
you know know damn well that your quote is conditioned on the idea of a multiverse or string landscape.

I know no such thing.
False vacuums. Not multiverse, not string landscape. You want to call false vacua - multiverses, then you are in direct conflict with your own authority - Stephen Hawking.

Quote from jem:
Your concept comes for his book which comes right after the paper I am quoting. As is the paper - your quote is is conditioned on the almost infinite solutions string theory provides for the string landscape... which is the multiverse. The multiverse is used to explain why our universe can appear to be so finely tuned.

The string landscape is not "the multiverse". I asked you a long while back to explain what you are assuming is being meant by the word multiverse, because it most certainly isn't the same thing being proposed in science.

Quote from jem:
Why do you lie your ass and misrepresent science stu.

You not understanding this stuff is not me lying my ass jem.

 

[jcl]

Quote from stu:

Can you kindly advise what's not real about my argument, which is basically that a tuner/god/designer is supernatural, and the supernatural as explanation for the universe, does not belong in science?

Because it's a semantic, not a physical argument.

The supernatural is something that can not be described by scientific laws or theories. By this definition, the multiverse and the string landscape are not supernatural, as they follow nature's laws, even though a theory of those laws is not solved yet.

But a designer god needs not be supernatural either. If we would observe gods and miracles in the real world, or if observation would suggest that magic is the best and simplest explanation of our existence, you can try to find a scientific theory of magic, or theories that describe gods, daemons and miracles. This would then be a rational magic world view, just as in the Harry Potter novels.

Only when you assume the existence of gods for reasons other than observation, or when you declare a god as not accessible by observation or scientific theories, then you leave the realm of science and enter an irrational world view.

 

[stu]

Quote from jcl:
Because it's a semantic, not a physical argument.

"The supernatural as explanation for the universe, does not belong in science".......is a semantic argument!?
That will need some explaining.

Quote from jcl:
The supernatural is something that can not be described by scientific laws or theories. By this definition, the multiverse and the string landscape are not supernatural, as they can be described by a mathematical theory, even though it's not solved yet.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote from jcl:

But a designer god needs not be supernatural either. If we would observe gods and miracles in the real world, or if observation would suggest that magic is the best and simplest explanation of our existence, you can try to find a scientific theory of magic, or theories that describe gods, daemons and miracles. This would then be a rational magic world view, just as in the Harry Potter novels.

No you can't do that.
You don't find scientific theory for so called miracles, or magic, voodoo, gods, whatever. They cannot be directly tested for. Nothing supernatural makes the grade up to observation, prediction, or testability on a scientific basis.
It starts as superstition and goes no further to science.

You can scientifically test, observe, examine, predict, confirm, match brain pattern - human reaction for instance. But the assumed god, leprechaun and Harry Potters behind those things, are always supernatural, mythical concepts.

Quote from jcl:

Only when you assume the existence of gods for reasons other than observation, or when you declare a god as not accessible by observation or scientific theories, then you leave the realm of science and enter an irrational world view.

You cannot assume the existence of a designer god for reasons of science to begin with. There is nothing about a designer god that isn't supernatural to even start the scientific process. Why do you think creationists are always trying to avoid the word they want to hold? Designer, creator, tuner but avoiding the word god. Yet they all amount to the same thing. Supernatural.

You don't take god out of the realms of science by declaring it inaccessible by observation or scientific theory. It isn't even in the realm of science from the start. Supernatural mythical legends show themselves.

Unless you alter the principle meaning of words - so as to say supernatural concepts do not mean they are supernatural; thought itself is no longer thought, but god. Observed brain pattern is god. Universe no longer universe but god. Everything there is no longer means, everything there is, but means god.
All of which is the kind of irrational deceit made in the name of religious belief but leaves nothing to assume in science.

There is though always that kind of semantic jiggery pokery upon which supernatural assumptions so often rely.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from stu:

Quote from jem:

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



There are gigantic understatements, and then there is that .

Ha ha, yeah really. We have had SOME evolution. Like we only went from bacteria to mammals in space in 3.8 bill years Along the way we spent some 2.6 billion years as microbes while God decided on how to evolve us into multicellular organisms.

"Some evolution" indeed.

 

[jcl]

Quote from stu:

You don't find scientific theory for so called miracles, or magic, voodoo, gods, whatever. They cannot be directly tested for. Nothing supernatural makes the grade up to observation, prediction, or testability on a scientific basis.
It starts as superstition and goes no further to science.

Ok, let me give a hypothetical example. Assume that you're an artificial intelligence inside a computer simulation of a Harry Potter world, with magic, gods and so on. You do not know that you're living in a simulation, so you assume that all the magic is real.

You can then make observations and experiments, find out how the magic works, and derive a magic theory that is basically a model of how the magic and the gods are programmed in the simulation. This would then be a valid, scientific approach to magic and gods in your hypothetical world. It's no superstition and nothing supernatural is involved.

It's a semantic argument that a god does not exist because it's supernatural. The scientific argument is that a god does not exist because we do not observe any gods or godly acts in our world. Therefore we do not live in a Harry Potter computer simulation. But if you could observe a god, you had to conclude that it exists in your world, supernatural or not.