Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Loudmouth]

I'm not an evolutionist.

You made this claim:

"Now getting those puddles of water to type on a computer requires extremely large amount of fine tuning."

Are you saying that you have no evidence to back it up?

 

[Smidlee]

You made this claim:

"Now getting those puddles of water to type on a computer requires extremely large amount of fine tuning."

Are you saying that you have no evidence to back it up?

Me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Me.

Begging the question.

 

[Smidlee]

Begging the question.

LOL. You don't seem to have any idea what it is involved just for me to do the simplest things in life. You take it for granted.

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL. You don't seem to have any idea what it is involved just for me to do the simplest things in life. You take it for granted.

So you admit to an argument from ignorance?

 

[HitchSlap]

LOL. You don't seem to have any idea what it is involved just for me to do the simplest things in life. You take it for granted.

Do you suffer a handicap?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Has anyone ever suggested that natural ponds and puddles are fine-tuned or designed ?

The frogs living in that pond suggested that in my analogy. Perhaps you should read the posts you are replying to.

The swimming pool is a better example of fine tuning than your example. It sounds like you never own a swimming pool as it requires some "fine tuning" to keep water clean so the frogs won't live in it. The swimming pool doesn't destroy the fine tune argument but supports it as like you wrote we can tell when something is done with a purpose in mind, thus designed.

This has literally nothing to do with the analogy you were replying to.

And the example of a swimming pool contrasted with a pond or puddle in the wild destroys the fine tuning argument, because it shows how you REALLY detect design: BY CONTRAST. Where are the 'designed' and 'not designed' universes to be used in contrast with our universe?

Atheist have no choice but deny the designs found in nature.

False. Atheists don't have to have an opinion on the matter.
It's theists that are required by their a priori religious beliefs to ASSUME there is design in nature. Because one of the tenants of their faith-based belief is that an undemonstrable deity made everything the way it is with planning, reason, intent and purpose.

A natural universe is RULED OUT for you, purely by virtue of your a priori faith-based beliefs. Me, as an atheist, I don't have to impose such limitations on reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not how bias works, dude. Bias is when you let your a priori beliefs influence your conclusion. Not your a prior non-beliefs.

When you argue against a belief system and set your arguments in that regard you are using your bias against that belief. It does work that way.

Or would you also say that Newton had a bias of "no graviton fairies"?

When did Newton ever argue against no graviton fairies? See the problem? Why argue against something that doesn't exist? He would never have had argued for something that is not believed to exist.

You should try to read with a bit more attention.
I said I can make a case that makes it more likely that whatever the explanation is, it will be a natural explanation.

I read it correctly. You could make a case for almost anything in life. However, having evidence to back it up is a different matter. I have provided links and scientific consensus to back up the fact that fine tuning is real. You have used your non-religious bias and nothing more.

And I explained how. The fact alone that we KNOW of natural causes but don't know about ANYTHING supernatural is enough to consider it more likely that whatever the explanation is - it likely will be a natural explanation.

Begging the question.

Supernatural "explanations" have been proposed for a billion and one things. Not once did it turn out correct. Every single examined instance however, turned out to have a natural explanation instead.

Really? How do you know?

No, that doesn't mean this trend will continue. But it does make it more likely. In fact, it's kind of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor is better fitted to the one God scenario than 10 to the 500th power of multiuniverses.

The supernatural explanation requires the assumption of the existence of undemonstrable supernatural things.
A natural explanation does not.

The same problem can be said to exist with the multiverse as well.

Is god involved in the tides, the seasons, the sun's burning, lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcano's, super novae, tidal waves and tsunami's, rain, wind,.........?

This is a case in point, do you know that if God did not create the universe that the natural elements of the oceans, seasons, the sun and the weather and natural disasters would even be possible? All of these features of our universe exist due to the fine tuning of the universe because without those our universe could not even exist. So if we reduce it down to the first possible moment of the universe's existence we find that the universe to even exist takes the fine tuning that you deny.

Can we "prove" that he isn't? No, because we can't prove negatives like that. In exactly the same way, we can't prove that graviton fairies are not involved in gravity. Do graviton fairies keep you awake at night?

We can't prove billions of things, even if we stay in the "natural" world with only naturalistic explanations. We will never be able to observe other universes even if they were to exist.

Shifting the burden of proof. It's upto those who wish to claim gods are involved to support it.

That doesn't relieve you of the burden to prove or provide evidence for yours. It seems many non-believers here think that they have no obligation to back up their own claims. If you are arguing against a claim then you are obligated to provide evidence to back it up. " I don't believe it" is not an argument that holds much weight.

No, that's not the reason. The reason it can't be done is:
- it's a shift of the burden of proof
- you can't logically prove a negative like that.

I went back and I can't find what this is in reference to.

Saying you can't prove that a god is involved with seasonal rain is like saying that it can't be proven that graviton fairies are involved with gravity. Or leprechauns with rainbows.

So don't do it. You are claiming that God is not involved in anything and doesn't exist, you don't do this due to evidence that supports that.

In science, we don't do that.
Which is why lightning has a natural explanation today, instead of "deity is throwing bolts at us".

Really? So on one hand you want to say that the scientists are being subjective when they claim fine tuning but on the other you claim Science doesn't do that. Which is it?

What things "appear to be" is a subjective opinion of the facts.
Tuning is determined by demonstrating a tuner, intent, purpose and agency. Not by looking at numbers and making unjustified claims about them.

You again fail to understand that fine tuning is real and that it is a scientific term. That is what my claim is based on.

I never once said that the universe and the nature thereof doesn't require an explanation. However, I don't assume the answers before asking the question. That's what you do.

Really? Are you not assuming that God is not involved?

No. We know that the universe is a universe that can contain life.
We don't know that it was "rigged" for life with planning, intent and purpose. because that is what tuning means.

You are getting closer. We do know that it appears to be "rigged" due to the values of the constants that allow life to exist.

Again, it would and it shows exactly the problem in your use of language and how you continue to confuse yourself (or deliberatly try to slip in your religious beliefs into the conversation).

1. I have been totally upfront with all my claims.
2. I established by scientific papers that fine tuning is a real phenomena and that it is the reason the universe appears designed.
3. I have said that my subjective opinion on the matter of fine tuning is that it supports design.

I am not trying to "slip" anything in.

Something that is TUNED has a TUNER and TUNING is done with intent, purpose and planning.

Which is why scientists claim the appearance of design. There is an appearance in the fact that the values are so exact and precise to allow for life that it appears they were done with intent, purpose and planning. That is why it supports design. The fine tuning of the universe is real, it is either due to natural causes or design. Design is known to show intent, purpose and planning and that is what the universe appears to show.

You don't know this, you assume it based on religious beliefs.

I have shown that the evidence is the measurements and calculations of the constants in our universe. We know life exists and we know what it requires to exist and that those requirements were met. We know that it is unnatural for this to have happened by chance alone.

What I base on my religious belief is that I believe the evidence supports design.

Really?
Here's that sentence again: The claim of Fine Tuning itself comes from those in authority of field of astrophysics/physics and cosmology

Where exactly is the word "appearance" here?

The fine tuning is considered real by most scientists in the field. The appearance comes in due to the appearance of design.

fine tuning = real phenomena
appearance of design = the precise and required values needed for life are present and appear they were "fixed or set" to be that way
Design = intent, Agency, planning and purpose

So the real phenomena of fine tuning appears to have a planned intent by an agent for a purpose.

Do you know what a metaphor is?
Most of our modern knowledge aren't things that we can "see" like I can see my pc monitor right now.

Do you think atoms appear to make up the things in our everyday lives (like computer monitors) or do they really make up the things in our everyday lives? We can see our computer monitor but there is a phenomena that we can't see but that we know exists and that is the atom. The same is true for the measurements that are fine tuned to allow for life on earth to exist. We can't see them but they exist and they are real.

We seek patterns. That is what we do. We are also prone to impose purpose and intent on things without being justified in doing so - which is kind of part of our pattern seeking nature.

So are you claiming that the pattern seeking is in determining the values or in determining the appearance of design? You seem to misunderstand what the appearance of design originates. It originates in the measurements and requirements found in our universe. That they appear designed is that they appear to show a planned intent by an agent for a purpose. It is possible that this appearance of an intent by an agent for a purpose is not accurate and that there is another natural occurring phenomena that can explain it. Unfortunately, that seems pretty limited and so that is why the multiverse seems so compelling to some scientists. Yet they even recognize that it doesn't really get rid of the fine tuning problem.

It's hindsight fallacious thinking.

It's saying that the rock is sharp so that the cat can scratch itself by rubbing against it. Instead of saying that the cat rubs against to rock to scratch itself because it is sharp.

Your entire reasoning is backwards.

It is not my reasoning. The fine tuning exists and has been discovered by scientists in the field. It is what it is. There must be an explanation and there are two distinct ones that are possible. Natural occurrence or design. It has nothing to do with hindsight in the way you are describing.

The universe isn't the way it is so that we could exist.
We exist because the universe is the way it is. If it were different, we wouldn't be here.

So brute fact? If science just claimed that is the way it is, how far would we be right now?

All this talk about "tuning" IMPLIES that you ASSUME that life was "meant to be". That's an extra-ordinary claim. And you are unable to support it.

I didn't claim that life was "meant to be". You are twisting my claim. I have repeated my claim over and over. I claim that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist. This fine tuning appears to be designed according to the scientists in the field. This means that it appears to have been planned by an agent with an intended purpose. That does not mean that scientists believe it was. They mean it appears that way. Some scientists in the field do believe that it does support actual design and some do not. I do and some people do not. Regardless, the fact remains that the fine tuning of the universe has this appearance and scientists are trying to come up with a naturalistic reason. Thus, the multiverse.

You are so stuck between a rock and a hard place, it's not even funny anymore.

It never was. You use your own biased worldview to deflect what actual scientists are claiming. Not what I am claiming but what they are claiming.

ps: didn't you just state that always include the word "appearance"? Because here you are again, talking about tuning as if it is an established fact.

Science rarely claims something is an established fact. However, fine tuning is not an appearance. The appearance of design is where you are getting lost. It appears that the fine tuning of our universe (real mathematical calculations) are designed due to the fact that they appear to be the product of a planned intent of an agent for a purpose.

Your dishonesty and semantic play of words is noted.

When all else fails pull the dishonesty card. Typical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Show us a single scientist who can demonstrate, with evidence, that a designer fine tuned our universe for life.

Never made that claim. Twisting once again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The universe shows evidence that its natural laws and constants are just right for life but not fine tuned.

To demonstrate fine tuning you need to show that the laws and constants have been adjusted from their original values. Can you do this?

So what would constitute fine tuned in your estimation since the scientists in the field agree that they are?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Possibly? Isn't that where we started?

Fairies possibly cause gravity? Leprechauns possibly cause rainbows?

What evidence do you have that gets us past a possible cause that is indistinguishable from something made up on the spot?

I am claiming that the appearance of design supports possible actual design. If something appears to be designed which means that something has the appearance of a planned intent by an agent for a purpose; it seems logical and reasonable to posit that there is possibly actual design as a cause.

 

[Oncedeceived]

AFAIK, it's impossible to do that Oncedeceived.

It would be like saying: "Prove Santa Claus isn't responsible for fine-tuning".

That's why the person making the assertion, in this case "There is an intelligence responsible for fine tuning the universe", has the burden of proof.

For example, if I said: "Santa Claus is responsible for fine-tuning the universe", I think we can both agree that I would have the burden of proof.

I am not claiming I have proof that design is actual. I am claiming that the appearance of design supports the possibility of actual design and that possibility is a reasonable and logical one based on the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Provide the evidence that proves there is no fine tuning.

Cosmic teapot.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"--Bertrand Russell

 

[Loudmouth]

I am claiming that the appearance of design supports possible actual design.

That is where we started before we even looked at the "appearance of design".

 

[Loudmouth]

So what would constitute fine tuned in your estimation since the scientists in the field agree that they are?

What evidence do scientists agree on that demonstrates the existence of a fine tuner?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Garden gnomes; prove they didn't.

You know when that happens, desperation has set in.

"Falsify my unfalsifiable position" she says, with all seriousness.

When no adequate argument exists non-believers resort to the only possible comeback....mockery. Typical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Cosmic teapot.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"--Bertrand Russell

Your misunderstanding is that you don't recognize that the fine tuning is a real phenomena just like atoms and quarks. If Davies, Barnes, Tipler and many many others saw this they would think you very inept in understanding the problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evidence do scientists agree on that demonstrates the existence of a fine tuner?

Straw man.

 

[Davian]

When no adequate argument exists non-believers resort to the only possible comeback....mockery. Typical.

Plays the victim card. Typical.

 

[Loudmouth]

Straw man.

No fine tuner, no fine tuning.