Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you really want to discuss this seriously, it would be best if you start a separate thread. The arguments against your position are relatively straightforward, but involve considerable math. What is your background in that subject? I assume you have read Shannon's paper and whoever you are getting your position from--it sounds to me more like Safarti than Dembski, but whatever.
Your entire line of argument here is misleading. The existence of God is not at issue in this forum or in this particular discussion, science does not rule it out either by definition or in practice and doesn't pretend otherwise. Granted, the theory of evolution causes difficulties for some versions of Christian theology, but representing it as ruling out God is dishonest.
So no evidence then? How surprising. If you actually had evidence you would be falling over yourself to present it rather than coming up with excuses for not presenting it: it's a very common strategy when one has no evidence.
But as I said before, your theories are as good and reliable until the next dig's find. All the general public is asking is that you tone down the "this is absolutely how it happened" responses to a more subtle response of "here is what we believe so far". Ordinary people read these summarizations that are put out by the scientific community (and they should) as the progress that is happening in the field of human evolution. This science isn't just for you scientists, it's for everyone to learn and process. Just because I'm a computer programmer doesn't mean I'm not very interested in man's life on Earth. So, if you want people to understand and follow your scientific progress present it in a less belittling and reasonable fashion. I'm not so much a creationist than an intelligent designer person. I see and believe that the Earth might be billions of years old. I just don't believe that humans started out as single celled creature and evolve up to its present form.
"Slightly" is an odd way to say "several percent".
The moment you start to vary multiple constants is the moment when your ability to have a clue what should happen goes out the window. I really can't take any of these types of claims seriously, especially all of this talk about what 'life requires' that is entirely based on living things that we can observe with the current constants of the Universe.
Except this is completely false. There is no "part in 10^120" at all. That number is the *ratio* between the measured value of the cosmological constant and one possible source called the "vacuum energy of empty space" as calculated. This either means that the CC is *not* the vacuum energy of empty space, or the calculations are drastically wrong and need fixing. It says nothing about the "fine tuning" of the CC. That we can do from cosmology (as this is a cosmological issue) and the CC could be several *times* larger than the current value without ripping the Universe apart before stars with the potential for life (planets, etc.) could form. The current value has *zero* impact on the ability of our Sun and planet to form, so it could be *zero* (infinitely smaller) without affecting us. Of all of the alleged "fine tunings" the cosmological constant is the most garbage nonsense.
If they are varied in the wrong directions. Remember that bit about stable nuclei from the variation in the nuclear force strength? Nuclei become unstable because the the nuclear force holding them together is too weak compared to the repulsive force of positive charges. One way to 'fix' or extend the viable range of variation in the nuclear force is to compensate by changing the EM force. If the Coulomb repulsion is smaller, then a weaker nuclear force can maintain binding of nuclei.
That is a very silly thing for them to say. There is no well defined limit on the landscape of possible universes, no way to compute the probability of any particular universe, no way of knowing how many possible universes exist, and no way to know what kinds of universes could also produce life that isn't quite like our own.
It is definitely a molecule, but the only way that "information" gets into it is from copying errors which sometimes result in killing the cell it is in.
'Meaningful' requires a mind to assign meaning to it, so you are implying the conclusion (mind/intentionality) in your claim of "meaningful information".
Yep. And so what?
Adding meaning that wasn't there isn't my problem...
Not in that paragraph, that is entirely a description of the usefulness of properties like morality and awareness. No philosophy.
Oh, if genetic information is functional sequences then this is easy. Scientists have observed the evolution of new functional sequences in experimental evolution studies, documented it occurring in nature, and identified multitudes of cases where it's happened in the past.
Are you sure about that? Even setting aside spontaneous particle generation and decay in quantum mechanics, at best we can say that everything material made from pre-existing material apparently has a cause.
Did it? Are you sure about that? What actual cosmologists will actually claim is that our Universe expanded from a prior hot dense state. They make no explicit claims about it "beginning to exist"
And even if we accept your premises, all we get is "the universe has a cause' and says nothing about the nature of that cause (intelligent, intentional, random, etc.)
I’m not claiming that science explicitly rules out God, but in practice, methodological naturalism does. It assumes all causes must be natural, so any evidence that might point beyond nature is excluded by default.
You sound very tense. Have a break and make yourself a coffee. Even try going to sleep. It may help.
I’m happy to explain or defend any point when there’s genuine dialogue. But there’s a difference between challenging a claim and dismissing every statement with “evidence please”. I’m here for real discussion, not just one-sided pushback.
You're right that the 1 in 10¹²⁰ figure is based on comparing the observed value of the cosmological constant with theoretical predictions of vacuum energy, but that's exactly the point: the value we observe is vastly smaller than expected, and yet incredibly precise. Even if the constant could vary by a few times and still allow life, it’s still sitting in a narrow life-permitting range, and no one really knows why.
We can't map all possible universes, but that doesn’t erase the fact that our universe permits life only within a very narrow range of conditions. Saying, “Well, we’re here, so of course it looks fine-tuned” (the observer argument) just pushes the question aside.
Meaning does require a mind. And that’s the point: DNA contains functional, goal-directed information, like instructions to build proteins. We only ever see that kind of specified, purposeful information come from intelligence. So it’s not assuming a mind, it’s inferring one from the kind of information we observe.
What’s usually observed is modification or duplication of existing sequences, not brand-new functional information from scratch. Small changes within existing systems aren't the same as explaining the origin of complex, specified information, which is what’s at stake.
Sure, many textbooks, museums, and science shows present evolution as a settled fact, not a theory open to challenge. Phrases like “we know evolution is true” are common, and alternative views, especially ones involving God, are excluded by default. That’s the double standard being pointed out.
It’s not special pleading, it’s applying consistent reasoning. Whenever we see complex, functional information or a cause for a beginning, we infer intelligence or cause. Rejecting design before examining the evidence is itself a philosophical bias. That’s the real issue here.
Science deals with natural causes, but when we see signs that point beyond nature, like the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, or functional information, it’s reasonable to consider non-natural causes too. That’s not special pleading, it’s following the evidence where it leads, even if it challenges naturalism. Science may not be able to test God directly, but that doesn’t mean the universe shows no signs of design.
Isn't that why you are looking for effects without an apparent natural cause? Evolutionary biology hasn't found any so far, and the jury is still out on abiogenesis because we don't really understand the effects themselves yet. Granted, science tends to a working hypothesis that the universe is a closed system of contingent causes (the only kind it studies) but that leaves plenty of room for divine causality.**
Who frames it that way? I don't think even atheists do that. It looks like we may have to consider some definitions of terms.
It only conflicts with the belief that those events must have occurred as literally described in Genesis, but that is a discussion which is definitely off topic for this forum.
