Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[HitchSlap]

You mean trying to stuff reality into your naturalistic beliefs.

Yes, natural reality stuffs into natural explanations, like a glove.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean trying to stuff reality into your naturalistic beliefs.

It doesn't take faith or stuffing to accept that nature exists.

 

[Smidlee]

It doesn't take faith or stuffing to accept that nature exists.

It does require you to have faith your five senses relates to a "real" world. So you do have to accept nature existences by faith. I think pretty much everyone would agree our senses in detecting "reality" of nature. The only thing can know for sure exist is our consciousness and some here tried to claim that was an illusion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It does require you to have faith your five senses relates to a "real" world. So you do have to accept nature existences by faith. I think pretty everyone would agree our senses in detecting "reality" of nature. The only thing can know for sure exist is our consciousness and some here tried to claim that was an illusion.

I am not person who is a part of naturalistic views

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does require you to have faith your five senses relates to a "real" world. So you do have to accept nature existences by faith. I think pretty much everyone would agree our senses in detecting "reality" of nature. The only thing can know for sure exist is our consciousness and some here tried to claim that was an illusion.

No. I can test it.
You can too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Part of the problem is that "fine tuning" has many meanings, and they are used interchangeably. As Oncedeceived is using it, it simply means that there is a narrow range of universes that life would appear . . . maybe. One example of fine tuning that has a known natural explanation is the Earth. The size, distance from the Sun, presence of water, and other values are all finely tuned, but we would expect to see such a planet appear in a universe with this many planets.

It seems that for one that this is fine tuned for life as well but not what I am talking about here. The size, distance from the sun, presence of water and other life giving circumstances that make life possible but it is not something that is all that expected at least in area of our galaxy. We know what features THIS universe needs and what this planet needs to allow life. We see no other planets with life. So we know at least in this area of the galaxy that life is rare. Yet, even if it were not as rare as it seems, it would still belong to this universe which has the fine tuning for life to exist. So even if life existed on a majority of planets, the fine tuning for the universe would be necessary for it. If it were not for this fine tuning life anywhere in the universe or even the universe to exist would not happen.

The term has been loaded from the beginning. As posters have shown, as soon as they use the term "fine tuning" they pretend it is the same as using "fine tuner". Oncedeceived plays this game all of the time, trying to declare that scientists support her beliefs that there is a designer because they describe the universe as fine tuned.

That is an outright lie. I have always maintained that the scientists do not agree that fine tuning means a tuner. I have repeatedly said that fine tuning is a term provided by the scientists researching the phenomena and has nothing to do with religion or a fine tuner. You are misrepresenting me and that is dishonest. You seem only able to argue with straw man arguments or misrepresenting me. That doesn't speak well of your position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It seems that for one that this is fine tuned for life as well but not what I am talking about here. The size, distance from the sun, presence of water and other life giving circumstances that make life possible but it is not something that is all that expected at least in area of our galaxy. We know what features THIS universe needs and what this planet needs to allow life. We see no other planets with life. So we know at least in this area of the galaxy that life is rare. Yet, even if it were not as rare as it seems, it would still belong to this universe which has the fine tuning for life to exist. So even if life existed on a majority of planets, the fine tuning for the universe would be necessary for it. If it were not for this fine tuning life anywhere in the universe or even the universe to exist would not happen.



That is an outright lie. I have always maintained that the scientists do not agree that fine tuning means a tuner. I have repeatedly said that fine tuning is a term provided by the scientists researching the phenomena and has nothing to do with religion or a fine tuner. You are misrepresenting me and that is dishonest. You seem only able to argue with straw man arguments or misrepresenting me. That doesn't speak well of your position.

We have discovered more than a dozen planets so similar to earth it is eerie. We just do not have the technology to go visit them to see if life is present on those planets. There is no way of knowing exactly how rare life is, for all we know literally every planet with the right conditions will have some form of life if nothing catastrophic prevents it.

Then stop mentioning fine-tuning as used by these people as if it is relevant to your position please

 

[Oncedeceived]

The only gullibility is you thinking that fine tuning evidences a designer.



I have already showed you that I can produce the same probabilities with the last 40 lottery winners.

I've already shown you that if so one won the lottery 40 times and some of those times simultaneously in different states (I might add that they would be the exact same numbers in all the lotteries won) that no one would be gullible enough to believe that they had the luck to do so. It is highly improbable and I would be investigated. You know that is true yet you continue to act like it would not be that improbable. The probability staying the same in each lottery is not significant in that people would still realize that a random chance of that happening would be highly unlikely.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's exactly what you are doing.



I meant a scientific reference., and the evidence backing those calculations.



And where is the evidence that this equation is accurate?

I gave a scientific reference. That came from scientists in the field. If it were inaccurate the peer review system would have provided correction.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's no use. She wants to believe what she needs to so as to protect her worldview.

I find this statement remarkable due to the fact that it is all of you that seem to need to protect your own worldview; so much so that you deny scientific consensus that the universe is fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

We know what features THIS universe needs and what this planet needs to allow life.

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

We see no other planets with life.

How many planets are there, and how many have we extensively searched for life?

We still don't know if Mars has life, or has had life. We also don't know if Europa has life. Those are two bodies just in our solar system.

So even if life existed on a majority of planets, the fine tuning for the universe would be necessary for it.

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

If it were not for this fine tuning life anywhere in the universe or even the universe to exist would not happen.

If the constants were different then the universe would be different. No one is debating that. What you forget is that a different universe would have unique features that require the different constants found in that universe. A universe without life can still be fine tuned.

That is an outright lie. I have always maintained that the scientists do not agree that fine tuning means a tuner. I have repeatedly said that fine tuning is a term provided by the scientists researching the phenomena and has nothing to do with religion or a fine tuner. You are misrepresenting me and that is dishonest. You seem only able to argue with straw man arguments or misrepresenting me. That doesn't speak well of your position.

Then you will turn around and say that fine tuning supports a designer, followed by a sentence stating that scientists agree with you about fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The only universes which would contain sentient life would be those few winners. And you can't really count us lucky to be in a "winning" universe, because there would be no "us" in a losing universe.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how probable an event that already occurred was prior to its occurance; trying to state that being improbable makes a creator necessary is a form of hindsight bias.

This position that you are taking is one of brute fact and one that has zero scientific value. IF we just say, "wow, we are sure lucky that we are in the "winning" universe" and sit back comfortably without asking why Science goes no further than what you all are claiming about the answer being God. With the conclusion that God made things orderly and knowable pushes us farther questioning how this occurred. With brute fact we have nowhere to go.

For example, the chances roughly of a person who has 4 kids of them all being the same gender is 1/16. However, if they already have 3 kids of the same gender, the chances of the 4th being the same gender of their siblings is 1/2. Probability only compounds upon itself for events that HAVEN'T happened, once any given event along the path to our universe having humans in it happens, our species became that much more probable. Sure, an undefinable number of events could have occurred to prevent me from being here to post, but the fact of the matter is those events didn't happen. Thus, the moment this is posted, the probability of it being posted is 100%. Because it will have become a past event.

However, those that do probability equations in their fields all the time do not agree. It is rather like saying that we see quasars because they are bright and ignoring why they are.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This position that you are taking is one of brute fact and one that has zero scientific value. IF we just say, "wow, we are sure lucky that we are in the "winning" universe" and sit back comfortably without asking why Science goes no further than what you all are claiming about the answer being God. With the conclusion that God made things orderly and knowable pushes us farther questioning how this occurred. With brute fact we have nowhere to go.



However, those that do probability equations in their fields all the time do not agree. It is rather like saying that we see quasars because they are bright and ignoring why they are.

I am stating that as long as the probability of humanity coming into being without a deity isn't 0, then our existence isn't proof or evidence that deities exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No question.

We have a text book example here, with all the defense mechanisms in full view and on overdrive.

I don't know if you just like the feeling you get by passing psychological assessments on people, if you are just in denial or if you are blind to the fact but regardless, if you think that this is in anyway altering my position you are terribly wrong. The astrophysicists/physicists/cosmologists support that the universe is in fact, fine tuned. You can ignore it or deny it or pass judgement on it but the reality is that it is supported by most scientists out there.

The fact that it supports my position as a theist is considered rational by many of those same scientists even those that do not hold to such a position.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have done well, but you have to know when to stop - she doesn't. She is making unfalsifiable claims from an infallible position, so merely pointing out the flaws in her arguments is not going to slow her down.

So you feel that fine tuning is an unfalsifiable claim from Scientists in their field?

Religions beliefs are like a house of cards, secured in a bank vault - the door cannot be opened to scrutiny, lest the lightest breeze knock it down.

Your opinion and nothing more.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which, she can't do, of course, because she's afraid of being branded "never a True Christian."

Look, if I didn't have evidence of God in my life, evidence that supported God's existence I would have absolutely no problem not being a Christian true or not. Why believe things that are not true? I don't need to do so. I have no problem with being wrong, I've been wrong many times before and I will be wrong many times to come about many many things. It just so happens that there is too much evidence for God's existence out in the world and for me personally that it would be impossible for me to deny it. It would be irrational and would lack reason and intelligence for me to do so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The people who acknowledge they believe on faith are not as vulnerable to reality, but the ones who desperately desire to have objective evidence, must experience quite a bit of inner turmoil when their positions are challenged.

I love this one. They are not as vulnerable to reality. So what you are saying is that those who do believe on faith alone do so because they live in a fantasy world anyway so they have no problem. Wow. Just Wow. I wonder what Diz would say to that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Look, if I didn't have evidence of God in my life, evidence that supported God's existence I would have absolutely no problem not being a Christian true or not. Why believe things that are not true? I don't need to do so. I have no problem with being wrong, I've been wrong many times before and I will be wrong many times to come about many many things. It just so happens that there is too much evidence for God's existence out in the world and for me personally that it would be impossible for me to deny it. It would be irrational and would lack reason and intelligence for me to do so.

And that is fine by me. Just understand that what you view as evidence for god I just don't see any divinity in. Likewise, it won't matter how often you bring it up, without adding something I have never encountered before, you won't be able to change my position.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly. I'm not sure which position is worse, though. Telling science to take a hike and ignore the whole of reality, or accept reality and try to stuff it into your religious beliefs.

Or denying science because it doesn't fit within your own atheistic worldview while claiming that science is the best way to know anything?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was referring to the believers like say sfs, or diz, who acknowledge well evidenced science as reality, but still have faith in their religious beliefs and acknowledge them as faith beliefs.

But you said that if they take their religion by faith they are less vulnerable about reality as if they were living in a fantasy world anyway. Why do you feel so comfortable with belief on faith? Could it be that if someone believes on faith you have no accountability towards evidence of God? Even Christopher Hitchens said that the fine tuning was a reasonable position for a theist.

Yeah. The fine-tuning, that one degree, well, one degree, one hair different of nothing—that even though it doesn’t prove design, doesn’t prove a Designer, [the fine-tuning] could have all happened without [God]— You have to spend time thinking about it, working on it. It’s not a trivial [argument]. We all say that.