Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

did you even listen to the whole video? none of his explainations involved a designer.


if there had to be a designer to create the universe there had to be a designer to create the designer. all you are doing is pushing the answer one step further back. eventually you have to resort to magic.








"My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment — however implausible — was designed to illustrate intelligent design’s closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don’t think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design."
richard dawkins

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394

ah so you did listen. so you heard that one option (although disliked by Dawkins) to explain the fine tunings is a Designer....

so now lets see if his dismissal stands up to scrutiny.

if there had to be a a (insert multiverse) all you are doing is pushing the answer one step further back. eventually you have to resort to magic.

so multiverse or designer... both fall subject to Dawkins problem.

Not lets examine the logic...

Dawkins dismissal is a non sequitor. Just because he thinks a designer would need magic to appear ... does not mean that a designer could not be responsible for the appearance of design in this universe. it just means Dawkins can not explain the Designer.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

ah so you did listen. so you heard that one option to explain the fine tunings is a Designer....

so now lets you his same logic and apply it to the multiverse...difference.

if there had to be a a (insert multiverse) all you are doing is all you are doing is pushing the answer one step further back. eventually you have to resort to magic.

QUOTE]
what you are implying makes no sense at all. a universe from natural forces would not require majic.

 

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

Quote from jem:

ah so you did listen. so you heard that one option to explain the fine tunings is a Designer....

so now lets you his same logic and apply it to the multiverse...difference.

if there had to be a a (insert multiverse) all you are doing is all you are doing is pushing the answer one step further back. eventually you have to resort to magic.

QUOTE]
what you are implying makes no sense at all. a universe from natural forces would not require majic.

you are trolling like a child.

how did the Creator get here?
how did a multiverse get here.

Natural forces - magic...

works for both because science has no window into what existed before the big bang.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

you are trolling like a child.

how did the Creator get here?
how did a multiverse get here.

Natural forces - magic...

works for both because science has no window into what existed before the big bang.

so no natural forces = magic? lol. you are losing it.


It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in evolution because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing by magic.
--Freethinker

 

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

so no natural forces = magic? lol. you are losing it.


It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in evolution because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing by magic.
--Freethinker

you can lead an et atheist to science but you can not make him think.

 

[jem]

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
after all the time I have been producing evidence for you delustional atheists, I though you would be too embarrased to lie about the science... Why don't you explain the fine tunings to theses scientists....

here are more quotes... from top scientists.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

Quote from jem:
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Quote from jem:

you are trolling like a child.

 

[stu]

Quote from Hansel H:

We may be storming in a teapot here; I don't suppose it's an important issue but.. Philosophy may be proposition but it's proposition that's tested in the crucible of logical discourse. Science is proposition tested in the physical world (because it's the only branch of philosophy that can be tested physically). Since imo science is philosophy anything done in science is done in philosophy. I must confess here that when science was called "natural philosophy" all other branches of philosophy were called "moral philosophy"; in other words a distinction was made at that time that has now come down to the distinction we make between science and philosophy. I would argue though that the distinction we make between pure science and applied science (engineering and technology) leaves pure science essentially propositional.

Me - bad philosophy? (gasp). But as I indicate above I don't see science and philosophy as separate and distinct.

This may look like a quibble but I see some epistemological importance in all of this.

You make an eloquent and rational case but in the end, philosophy, the thinking of, and science, the putting of a practical thought to the test, are essentially two different things. Necessarily distinct.

I don't deny the two go hand in hand, but they cannot be the same or even especially similar.

Your suggestion that pure science is essentially propositional is simply not so. It is impossible for example, to develop physiology (pure science) without extensive knowledge already gained from scientific discovery (applied science) to enable say for instance, biotech ( further applied science).

As the Wright brothers no doubt knew , all the epistemology , philosophy and propositions of flight in the world, would never get them airborne unless they did something completely different and separate to all that - called science.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

same old same old....it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity

jem i dont know why you bother here. you are not going to convince educated adults that some invisible guy in the sky made the world. wouldnt your talents be better put to use in childrens sunday school?

 

[jem]

here is a recap of stu's understanding of this science....


Quote from stu:

"I have a Nobel prize winner telling me there is no need for what you call design - but is meant to mean intelligent design - in the universe.
You have a built in incomprehension of what a Nobel Prize winner is actually telling me.


Were you to ever stop trying to read stuff which isn't there, into already clear explanations that are there, you might one day comprehend like a normal person.

He clearly states that even without a fundamental principle, recent developments in cosmology offer the possibility of an explanation of why the cosmological constants are favorable for intelligent life.

You're hoping cosmology is going to say the explanation is God. Lol. Dream on. Only religion can ever do that as it remains the ultimate non-explanation of all time.


No. He says nothing about infinite universes. One universe, many big bangs.

Shouting liar along with with your phony choice is being demolished by the very people you like to constantly quote - a Nobel prize winning scientist ,who actually won his distinction within his field of expertise, unlike the many others you like to misrepresent so much.

One universe which actually exists does not propose a possibility of multiverses.
There was never a need for your fake choice between infinite universes or intelligent design anyway. Now your Nobel prize winner tells you no need for possible infinite universes, things could be explained by just one that exists in reality.

Trouble with you Jem for the last 10 years is you've made no progress towards understanding anything at all with your worn out dumb ass non-arguments.


I have defined my position on numerous occasions. All you do is ignore every response, make the same weary thick headed argument about what the dictionary states and some brainless comment about agnostic, only to then hopelessly repeat the same question over again.

In every aspect of these religious topics, even though refuted over and over and over again, all you can think of is to constantly drone out the same old dead excuse for an argument for it to be knocked down for the umpteenth time.

That's what the religious virus can do against thinking for yourself ,and in your case, just thinking in general."


-------------------------------------

jems response...


1. you are so ignorant of the science, you should be embarrassed.

Whether its trillions of other universes or trillions of other patches of space with different tunings... its the same thing. You were fooled by the nomenclature... and completely misunderstand the point.
To counter the conclusion of tuner... some scientists hope to find other differently tuned universes or patches of our universe. Depending on how you Define the word UNIverse or Multiverse.

2. I notice you still don't have the balls to state your own form atheism.

And yes we know why... as a troll you state there is no God. However, you realize that stance is indefensible in an adult conversation. so you prefer to troll you ass of.