Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

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.

You haven't encountered fine tuning. You don't care enough to research it to see what is there. IF you don't want to even look how would you ever think that you would change your position?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I am not going to stop mentioning fine tuning is relevant to my position because even those scientists that do not hold my position think it is a reasonable conclusion.

Examples?

In fact so reasonable that the multiverse is the other most reasonable option to those who don't want God:

“If there is only one universe,” Brandon Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

Right, because an unevidenced deity magically poofing the universe into being is such a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

You haven't encountered fine tuning. You don't care enough to research it to see what is there. IF you don't want to even look how would you ever think that you would change your position?

Fine tuning is no more than, "If our universe were different then we would observe a different universe".

 

[Davian]

Not relevant.

Not chance, then?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You haven't encountered fine tuning. You don't care enough to research it to see what is there. IF you don't want to even look how would you ever think that you would change your position?

Why are you assuming I haven't looked? I have to take into account both sides of the issue and all in between, I can't just look at sources that support one particular conclusion, not that all the sources you cite actually support your conclusion.

Sure, you probably have looked into it more than I have, but that doesn't make me uninformed.

 

[selfinflikted]

Fine tuning is no more than, "If our universe were different then we would observe a different universe".

But it's fine-tuned for US! For HUMANS! If it were any different, we couldn't be here! Therefore, god!

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

You don't get it at all. Your claim is that since we are here there is no issue. That you ignore that it is an issue either means you don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand what astrophysicists are talking about or you simply don't want to know what they are talking about.

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.

I said it wouldn't matter because the universe would be life permitting and you would have to explain it.

You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

No, you simply don't understand the issue.

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.

Fine tuned for what?

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.

I have consistently maintained that the scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned for life's existence. A claim I make which is not agreed by consensus of scientists is that fine tuning of the universe supports design.

 

[Davian]

I didn't say that fine tuning was unfalsifiable.

Does design of the universe not include fine tuning?

I don't know what you are referring to.

You inability to examine your personal 'evidence' for God. You have declared it infallible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A claim I make which is not agreed by consensus of scientists is that fine tuning of the universe supports design.

Which is why you shouldn't source them as supporting your position.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't get it at all. Your claim is that since we are here there is no issue.

My claim is that we were already here before you made the claim that life was the goal of the universe. You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole that already existed.

That you ignore that it is an issue either means you don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand what astrophysicists are talking about or you simply don't want to know what they are talking about.

I am talking about your assumption that life was the goal of the universe.

I said it wouldn't matter because the universe would be life permitting and you would have to explain it.

I would HAVE to? Why don't you have to explain it with evidence? Why isn't "I don't know" a valid placemarker?

No, you simply don't understand the issue.

Given your inability to refute my argument, it appears you are the one who doesn't understand the issues that your assmptions cause.

Fine tuned for what?

Fine tuned for the unique features of that universe that are not seen in other universes.

I have consistently maintained that the scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned for life's existence. A claim I make which is not agreed by consensus of scientists is that fine tuning of the universe supports design.

You have claimed in multiple posts that fine tuning supports a designer. Are you running away from that statement again?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Examples?

Already given. Paul Davies and Luke Barnes were two.

Right, because an unevidenced deity magically poofing the universe into being is such a reasonable conclusion.

So you think that just accepting it as brute fact is reasonable when you hold to a scientific worldview?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fine tuning is no more than, "If our universe were different then we would observe a different universe".

NO it is more like if our universe were different then we would not be here to observe it.

 

[Dizredux]

Just

“If there is only one universe,” Brandon Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

Who is Brandon Carr? Can't seem to find him.

Dizredux

 

[selfinflikted]

NO it is more like if our universe were different then we would not be here to observe it.

Or maybe we would, but we would just be different as well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just

Who is Brandon Carr? Can't seem to find him.

Dizredux

Sorry my bad. It is Bernard Carr.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But it's fine-tuned for US! For HUMANS! If it were any different, we couldn't be here! Therefore, god!

No, it is not therefore God. It is supportive of that position and one that is cohesive with theism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why are you assuming I haven't looked? I have to take into account both sides of the issue and all in between, I can't just look at sources that support one particular conclusion, not that all the sources you cite actually support your conclusion.

Sure, you probably have looked into it more than I have, but that doesn't make me uninformed.

When you make the remarks you do about Fine Tuning I know that you have not "looked" into it very much.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just

Who is Brandon Carr? Can't seem to find him.

Dizredux

Outside linebacker for the Steelers?

 

[Dizredux]

Outside linebacker for the Steelers?

And to show how quick I am, I figured it out in at least 30 or 40 seconds that probably was not who she meant.

They don't call me 'Ol Lightening for nothing you know.


Dizredux

 

[selfinflikted]

No, it is not therefore God. It is supportive of that position and one that is cohesive with theism.

It would be supportive of the theist position if you could show that fine tuning actually happened.