Inflation, String Theory, Evolution, Anthropic Principle

[Willtor]

I didn't claim otherwise. When modern science was born, it was within the metaphysical assumptions based on God's attributes. Continuity, ordinances/laws that the universe was governed by and man's ability to comprehend it all were all ideas from Christianity; under these pretenses scientists looked for how God created. Now, Science is many times used to explain away God. Granted, not all scientists are motivated to come up with naturalistic explanations just to eliminate the need for God as the explanation but there are some very prominent ones that do.

The fine tuned parameters, the design in all of nature I believe discovered by man are illuminating His hand in it all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I seriously don't get what you are saying here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What fact pushes God out? Example?

You need facts that push god in.
Burden of proof and all that....

I disagree, and many others even those that are not theists claim are looking for a way to "explain away" the fine tuning of the universe. Dawkins tries to explain away design in living forms.

Certain constants having certain values do not suggest the existance of anything supernatural in any way.

Nothing needs to be "explained away" here.
What science tries to do is find out why the values are what they are.
As always, the theist will assume the answer before asking the question.
You claim that "god" is the reason why the values are what they are.
But your bare assertions are just that....

Science actually looks for answers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We know if they were different life would not exist.

We don't know that.
We know that there are configurations that would make life impossible.

But there is no reason to assume that any configuration but this one would make life impossible.

Even if there is a natural explanation for why they are where they are, they would still need to be where they are for life to exist.

Is it that surprising to you that we live in a universe in which we actually can exist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You need facts that push god in.
Burden of proof and all that....

Design is observed in nature. Design implies a Designer. It is logical to conclude a Designer, if it is otherwise then that pushes God out.

Certain constants having certain values do not suggest the existance of anything supernatural in any way.

That is only your opinion, even other Atheists do believe that fine tuning is a logical conclusion for the fine tuning, it is just one they disagree with, or they feel that it is not a scientific answer.

Nothing needs to be "explained away" here.
What science tries to do is find out why the values are what they are.
As always, the theist will assume the answer before asking the question.
You claim that "god" is the reason why the values are what they are.
But your bare assertions are just that....

Again, that is just your opinion. Science has run out of answers for the fine tuning and have now moved on to the only possible scenario that they feel could explain it...the multiverse.

Science actually looks for answers.

Yes, that is what it is suppose to do, you personally just have an aversion to the God answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We don't know that.
We know that there are configurations that would make life impossible.

But there is no reason to assume that any configuration but this one would make life impossible.

We do know that any other configuration would not produce this kind of life. Possible other types of life, something that has no evidence whatsoever, is not an argument against the fine tuning needed for this life on earth.

Is it that surprising to you that we live in a universe in which we actually can exist?

It actually is. When you look at all the data it is extremely improbable but yet we still exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Design is observed in nature.

You keep saying this, but you never show how it is true.

Design implies a Designer

Yes, it is a loaded word.

It is logical to conclude a Designer

No. It might be easy, but it is not logical.
At least not, until you can actually show how "design" can be objectively detected.

, if it is otherwise then that pushes God out.

No. Showing "design" doesn't even push god in. I thought the ID crowd was so big on the fact their designer isn't necessarily a god? A little something they needed to slip in so as to camouflage the underlying religious intentions of their "scientific" theory?

It is true though. Showing that something was of non-human design does not get you to any particular god. It only gets you to an unkown non-human entity.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. You are still stuck at step one: showing actual intentional design in an objective fashion.

After you succeed in step one, can we start to discuss how "designer" turns into "christian god". Before step one, such a discussion is a waste of time.

That is only your opinion, even other Atheists do believe that fine tuning is a logical conclusion for the fine tuning

"Fine tuning" is a logical conclusion for "fine tuning".

uhu....

Yes, I also agree that A equals A, that B equals B and that C equals C.
Who would have thought?

Off course, I don't really care for the semantic games you like to play by loading up words in ways that they were never intended.

, it is just one they disagree with, or they feel that it is not a scientific answer.

Right, loading up words and then pretending that the baggage it was loaded with is "true", because you can make it fit semantically...is not a scientific answer.

Because you see, we don't actually know anything about why those values are the way they are.
For all we know, the values couldn't have been any different.
For all we know, there are gazibillions of universes and we happen to live in the one in which we can live.

We don't know.
Some guy once coins the words "fine tuning" and you jump on it like a hawk, attach your christian god to it and boom, pretend science "proves" or "supports" god.

It doesn't really works like that....

Science has run out of answers for the fine tuning and have now moved on to the only possible scenario that they feel could explain it...the multiverse.

"science doesn't know, therefor this religious interpretation is true".

Argument from ignorance.

Yes, that is what it is suppose to do, you personally just have an aversion to the God answer.

No. I have an aversion to superstitious, unsupported, fallacious and intellectually dishonest answers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We do know that any other configuration would not produce this kind of life.

I doubt that, but let's assume it's true.
So what?

Are you surprised to live in a universe that can support your existance?

Possible other types of life, something that has no evidence whatsoever, is not an argument against the fine tuning needed for this life on earth.

Pointing out that we live in a universe in which we can exist is not an argument for it either. ("it" being your loaded version of the words "fine tuning", implying a tuner with intention)

It actually is. When you look at all the data it is extremely improbable but yet we still exist.

I would be more surprised if I would exist in a universe in which I actually could NOT exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You keep saying this, but you never show how it is true.

I have but you unlike most scientists deny it. Reverse engineering in molecular machines is one scientific endeavor that provides confirmation of design in living things. Fine tuning in the universe is observed by scientific methods that provide documentation and confirmation for the multitude of parameters that must have the values they do for intelligent life on this planet to exist.

Yes, it is a loaded word.

No, actually. It is a word that we use in human design all the time.

No. It might be easy, but it is not logical.
At least not, until you can actually show how "design" can be objectively detected.

There is a consensus that provides confirmation that most scientists accept.

No. Showing "design" doesn't even push god in. I thought the ID crowd was so big on the fact their designer isn't necessarily a god?

What? That is ridiculous. It just states that the Designer can't not be confidently identified.

A little something they needed to slip in so as to camouflage the underlying religious intentions of their "scientific" theory?

Opinion. The science is science. NO more nor no less than when scientists begin with if evolution is true this is what we predict. Same concept.

It is true though. Showing that something was of non-human design does not get you to any particular god. It only gets you to an unkown non-human entity.

Yes, except that the Christian Theology metaphysical behind science and the Biblical predictions of those point to the identity being the Christian God.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. You are still stuck at step one: showing actual intentional design in an objective fashion.

After you succeed in step one, can we start to discuss how "designer" turns into "christian god". Before step one, such a discussion is a waste of time.

Really? You start with evolution did it without step one...how does the universe exist at all, then without step two, how does life exist at all and on and on. Perhaps theists should demand that you provide evidence for life's existence prior to claiming that evolution is the answer to all life on earth. You provide how life on earth exists without God and then we can have a discussion otherwise it is a waste of time.

"Fine tuning" is a logical conclusion for "fine tuning".

uhu....

Yes, I also agree that A equals A, that B equals B and that C equals C.
Who would have thought?

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't help. It is the way it is is not the scientific mindset that you like to project.

Off course, I don't really care for the semantic games you like to play by loading up words in ways that they were never intended.

Design implies designer...no semantic acrobatics just common usage.

Right, loading up words and then pretending that the baggage it was loaded with is "true", because you can make it fit semantically...is not a scientific answer.

Sticking your head in the sand is not a scientific answer either.

B

ecause you see, we don't actually know anything about why those values are the way they are.
For all we know, the values couldn't have been any different.
For all we know, there are gazibillions of universes and we happen to live in the one in which we can live.

We don't know.
Some guy once coins the words "fine tuning" and you jump on it like a hawk, attach your christian god to it and boom, pretend science "proves" or "supports" god.

It doesn't really works like that....

Yes, it supports God's existence in that the Bible claims that God provided the universe for intelligent beings such as ourselves. It provides support for God's existence because the Bible claims that our universe should point to Him in its design; in the laws and consistency, the intelligence of life on earth and the comprehending of that universe being accessible to those intelligent life forms.

"science doesn't know, therefor this religious interpretation is true".

Argument from ignorance.

Modern Science developed from the idea that God did make the universe accessible to man and we could learn about it due to that. We do know that the parameters do need to be as they are for us to exist; we know that in Christian theology the reason for that is that God wished His handiwork to be evident. The fine tuning being as it is supports the Christian theology. Now whether or not you wish to accept that is your choice, but there is nothing in science that would prohibit that conclusion.

No. I have an aversion to superstitious, unsupported, fallacious and intellectually dishonest answers.

Yet, you have no problem with unsupported, fallacious and intellectually dishonest assertions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I doubt that, but let's assume it's true.
So what?

Are you surprised to live in a universe that can support your existance?

No, not at all. Christian Theology predicts that we should find intelligent design in a universe that is comprehensible to us.

Pointing out that we live in a universe in which we can exist is not an argument for it either. ("it" being your loaded version of the words "fine tuning", implying a tuner with intention)

Pointing out that we live in a universe that exists at all is better explained by something outside of that universe causing the universe in the first place. A universe by intelligent design is supported by that fine tuning and the design in all life that exists on earth is another.

I would be more surprised if I would exist in a universe in which I actually could NOT exist.

Nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have but you unlike most scientists deny it. Reverse engineering in molecular machines is one scientific endeavor that provides confirmation of design in living things. Fine tuning in the universe is observed by scientific methods that provide documentation and confirmation for the multitude of parameters that must have the values they do for intelligent life on this planet to exist.

The difference is that rational people don't load their terms like you do.

No, actually. It is a word that we use in human design all the time.

Yes, actually. Well, it depends on how you use it.
When we talk about the "design of a snowflake" or the "design of sandripples" or the design of an Albatros wing, then we mean "natural design". Not "artificial design". You like to pretend they are the same thing. But they aren't.

There is a consensus that provides confirmation that most scientists accept.

Repeating your claims don't make them true.
Please share this magical way of objectively detecting artificial design. In fact, I just created a thread to ask people to answer exactly that question:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-design-and-how-to-detect-it.7906740/

What? That is ridiculous. It just states that the Designer can't not be confidently identified.

Wich would mean that you can't use it to push god in, since the designer could be anyone. Learn your own pseudo-science.

Opinion. The science is science. NO more nor no less than when scientists begin with if evolution is true this is what we predict. Same concept.

No. Providing the answers before asking the questions is not the same thing as actually scientific predictions.

Yes, except that the Christian Theology metaphysical behind science and the Biblical predictions of those point to the identity being the Christian God.

See? A priori religious beliefs.
They don't get you nowhere.

Really? You start with evolution did it without step one...how does the universe exist at all, then without step two, how does life exist at all and on and on. Perhaps theists should demand that you provide evidence for life's existence prior to claiming that evolution is the answer to all life on earth. You provide how life on earth exists without God and then we can have a discussion otherwise it is a waste of time.

I think that it's a pretty assumption to state that life exists - which is all that evolution requires.
It's ID that makes claims about how life came into existance, not evolution.

Design implies designer...no semantic acrobatics just common usage.

Natural design doesn't.

Yes, it supports God's existence in that the Bible claims that God provided the universe for intelligent beings such as ourselves. It provides support for God's existence because the Bible claims that our universe should point to Him in its design; in the laws and consistency, the intelligence of life on earth and the comprehending of that universe being accessible to those intelligent life forms.

So... a priori religious beliefs, fueld by ignorance.

Modern Science developed from the idea that God did make the universe accessible to man and we could learn about it due to that. We do know that the parameters do need to be as they are for us to exist; we know that in Christian theology the reason for that is that God wished His handiwork to be evident. The fine tuning being as it is supports the Christian theology. Now whether or not you wish to accept that is your choice, but there is nothing in science that would prohibit that conclusion.

The fine tuning being as it is supports every single creation myth you can come up with.

Unfalsifiable a priori religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Yet, you have no problem with unsupported, fallacious and intellectually dishonest assertions.

Such as?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, not at all. Christian Theology predicts that we should find intelligent design in a universe that is comprehensible to us.

A priori religious beliefs are irrelevant.
It's giving the answers before asking the questions.

Pointing out that we live in a universe that exists at all is better explained by something outside of that universe causing the universe in the first place.

Perhaps. I don't know.
However, that idea still doesn't get you to humans being the intention of the universe. Not even by a long shot.

It also doesn't say anything about what that thing "outside the universe" was. Ignorance is not an argument.

A universe by intelligent design is supported by that fine tuning and the design in all life that exists on earth is another.

Your a priori religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Nonsense.

Absolutely not.

I would absolutely be more baffled to find myself existing in a universe in which I could not exist, then to find myself existing in a universe in which I could exist.

Wouldn't you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The difference is that rational people don't load their terms like you do.

Design implies a Designer is not loading a term. You might not like the rational conclusion that it produces but it is rational and more parsimonious than having observed design without one.

Yes, actually. Well, it depends on how you use it.
When we talk about the "design of a snowflake" or the "design of sandripples" or the design of an Albatros wing, then we mean "natural design". Not "artificial design". You like to pretend they are the same thing. But they aren't.

Why do you separate human design as "artificial design" and the other as "natural design"? Aren't you separating something that belongs to the same cause? We as humans in your worldview are just part of that "natural design". Why do you separate the two? That seems somewhat inconsistent with your own position? If we are just naturally produced the design we produce is just an extension of the natural design process. Yet, I think that you would agree that we do design and that the designs we produce are produced by our intelligence and not the natural world we see around us as in the ripples in sand or a snowflake. However, those other "natural designs" are results of the design of the universe and in the same way a product of the intelligence behind the laws and physics that produce it.

When we talk about the design of a snowflake or sand ripples we are not talking about design we are talking about the product of principles and properties of the order of the universe which while make "natural design" are still a product of the cosmic design you wish to ignore. Design of the universe from the incredible values that are just as they need to be what they are for life to exist are from the same design that gives us order rather than disorder, snowflakes and sand ripples are due to the order and laws that provide support to an intelligence that designed it all.

Repeating your claims don't make them true.
Please share this magical way of objectively detecting artificial design. In fact, I just created a thread to ask people to answer exactly that question:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-design-and-how-to-detect-it.7906740/

We understand that order does not just spontaneously arise from disorder. We understand design makes order from disorder and that this order comes from the mind. We produce order from our minds as we design things from "dis" ordered things. We detect order and laws that we know must come from mind not matter. Laws do not arise from matter. Thoughts are not products of matter. The universe and all its design are orderly and of the mind. They show intelligence behind it all.

Wich would mean that you can't use it to push god in, since the designer could be anyone. Learn your own pseudo-science.

Explain how it could be anyone. Did you create the universe? That is impossible as you were born after the universe...so it could not be just anyone. Could it have been the first human that existed in the universe? Whoops, that human would be born in the universe as well so that wouldn't work. Was it the first living life form...whoops, that would require the universe already being present as well...so how in your mind could the designer be just anyone?

No. Providing the answers before asking the questions is not the same thing as actually scientific predictions.

Explain what the difference is, how is the prediction..if God then this... is different than scientists predicting if evolution then this?

See? A priori religious beliefs.
They don't get you nowhere.

A priori non-religious beliefs actually get you nowhere immediately. All the evidence shows that the universe could not come from nothing. All the evidence shows that life did not beginning from non-life. All the evidence shows that the universe has design (intent, laws, a beginning). All the evidence shows that life is designed (intent, laws, intelligence and a beginning). The evidence supports intelligent design, the question for those who really want to know the who that is behind it all should be the quest to identify that Designer.

I think that it's a pretty assumption to state that life exists - which is all that evolution requires.
It's ID that makes claims about how life came into existance, not evolution.

Evolution did not evolve. Life is necessary for evolution. Evolution is a process...a mechanism for that life to adapt and change. That adapting and changing is due to the laws that must be present for evolution to happen. You are focusing on a process within the whole while ignoring the whole. Evolution explains nothing other than how life changes, it doesn't explain how the universe exists, how life exists and how all this matters to us.

Natural design doesn't.

See above.




So... a priori religious beliefs, fueld by ignorance.[/QUOTE]This is not something that shows you are utilizing your intelligence when you disregard the possibility of God and only look at a process within the universe to supply your entire worldview. Your naturalistic view has to ignore the whole...you ignore that intelligence has never been shown to come from non-intelligent matter...you ignore that evolution did not evolve and had to arise from laws that are part of a universe governed by laws and ordinances that are products of mind and not matter...you ignore that life has only been shown to come from life and not from non-living matter and you say my beliefs are fueled by ignorance? It would be funny if it wasn't so important and if I just didn't care about your eternal destiny.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A priori religious beliefs are irrelevant.
It's giving the answers before asking the questions.

Which is exactly what you are doing. You are working upon the a priori non-religious belief that life is just a natural occurring phenomena before you even ask the questions. Questions you should ask. How did the laws and order arise in a universe that had a beginning with none of the laws and time that came into being when it did?

Perhaps. I don't know.
However, that idea still doesn't get you to humans being the intention of the universe. Not even by a long shot.

Evolution does not predict humans arising. Your worldview does not get you to humans. However, my worldview is consistent with a Being that wanted to create beings that were intelligent and could recognize and comprehend the universe unlike evolution that has no reason for us to be intelligent and comprehending the universe around us.

It also doesn't say anything about what that thing "outside the universe" was. Ignorance is not an argument.

It is a more logical argument to explain the law and order that we find "inside the universe". It is a more logical argument that we can logically consider anything "inside the universe".

Your a priori religious beliefs are irrelevant.

And your non-religious beliefs are too. But my beliefs are more consistent and logical with the universe we find ourselves in.

Absolutely not.

I would absolutely be more baffled to find myself existing in a universe in which I could not exist, then to find myself existing in a universe in which I could exist.

Wouldn't you?

I repeat...nonsense. According to your argument any universe in which we exist is a universe which we could exist. So nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Design implies a Designer is not loading a term.

Really?
Who is the "designer" that designed these sandripples?

You might not like the rational conclusion that it produces but it is rational and more parsimonious than having observed design without one.

Ignoring the difference between natural design and artificial design is only making you look rather desperate.

Why do you separate human design as "artificial design" and the other as "natural design"?

Because one is produced by a conscious entity while the other is produced by a natural phenomena.

I find it phenomenal that it needs to be explained.

Aren't you separating something that belongs to the same cause? We as humans in your worldview are just part of that "natural design". Why do you separate the two?

You don't understand the difference between a conscious entity that makes plans, anticipates, etc on the one hand and blind natural processes on the other?

Really?

Yet, I think that you would agree that we do design and that the designs we produce are produced by our intelligence and not the natural world we see around us as in the ripples in sand or a snowflake.

Yes, I understand that. It seems you don't, however.
Seeing as how you seem to be objecting to the proposed difference in natural design on the one hand and artificial designs on the other.

However, those other "natural designs" are results of the design of the universe and in the same way a product of the intelligence behind the laws and physics that produce it.

Your religious bias is showing again.
Simply claiming the universe is designed by your god of choice is only going to sound appealing to people who already believe that.

When we talk about the design of a snowflake or sand ripples we are not talking about design we are talking about the product of principles and properties of the order of the universe which while make "natural design" are still a product of the cosmic design you wish to ignore.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not imposing a priori religious beliefs on the universe. I'm not the one trying to plug the holes in our knowledge with my deity of choice.

Design of the universe from the incredible values that are just as they need to be what they are for life to exist are from the same design that gives us order rather than disorder, snowflakes and sand ripples are due to the order and laws that provide support to an intelligence that designed it all.

Again with the a priori religious assumptions....

You keep claiming the universe is "designed" (in the loaded version of the word), but you fail to demonstrate it.

The submit that the only reason you believe that, is because your religion requires you to believe that.

We understand that order does not just spontaneously arise from disorder.

Are you sure?
I'ld say that dropping a magnet in a chaotic mess of metal particles quite spontaneously creates order in that chaotic mess. It's just natural laws acting upon matter. You can know make the baseless assertion that "the natural laws are designed by my deity of choice!!!1!!1"

We understand design makes order from disorder and that this order comes from the mind.

Please demonstrate that electromagnetism comes from "the mind".
Please demonstrate that a "mind" can even exist absent a brain.
If you fail to do both, please explain what the word "understand" means in your sentence.

Thoughts are not products of matter. The universe and all its design are orderly and of the mind. They show intelligence behind it all.

You are again just claiming this.
Please justify your claims with evidence.

Explain how it could be anyone.

Ask William Dembski.
I don't feel a need to "defend" the ideas of cdesign proponentsists.

Did you create the universe?

Yes.

That is impossible as you were born after the universe...

This body was, yes. My "spirit" was not. ;-)

so it could not be just anyone.

No, it could only be me.

Could it have been the first human that existed in the universe? Whoops, that human would be born in the universe as well so that wouldn't work. Was it the first living life form...whoops, that would require the universe already being present as well...so how in your mind could the designer be just anyone?

It could be any extra-dimensional alien.
It could be that this universe is just a science experiment taking place in another universe.

It could also be that there is no "outside" the universe and that there is some cycle we don't know about that makes the universe itself eternal and just change "form".

But don't let intellectual honesty get in your way.
But what are we talking about, really?

We are getting far ahead of ourselves. I'm bending over backwards here.... in reality, all we are doing is speculating upon things that you are simply asserting out of religious confirmation bias.

Explain what the difference is, how is the prediction..if God then this... is different than scientists predicting if evolution then this?

For starters, evolution is a well defined construct and a process that demonstrably takes place every generation.

Gods on the other hand are vague, faith-based and unfalsifiable.
They are assumed to exist not because of evidence, but because of religious doctrine.

A priori non-religious beliefs actually get you nowhere immediately.

Pffff, I'm done.
It's always the same shenannigans over and over and over again.

Just like after the other monster threads, I'm left wondering what it is exactly that you accept from science and what not.

As always, it seems you only accept that which you feel you can incorporate into your religious defences (at that particular time).

Ugh....

I await with anticipation your explanation in how to detect artificial design in that dedicated thread for that subject I linked you to.

Not that I actually expect a proper answer though.