Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence?

We know that all the laws of physics that govern this universe were not involved in the birth of the universe. It would have taken something outside of it to create it. Something from nothing is not a valid option and one in which many other astrophysicists and scientists in that field have refuted.

Then you reject both of them until evidence is presented?

I don't. You can. I have much more evidence that is convincing which brings me to my conclusion.

Can you please explain why God could not have created our solar system, as we see it now? All of these finely balanced this or that for the whole universe are completely unnecessary.

1. God wanted the universe to point to Him.
2. We are made in the image of God and in that we have intelligence and reason in which we use to discover our world. If there was nothing to understand it would be completely boring.
3. When humans create we use methods and materials to do so. Why wouldn't God? He chose to make the universe with the language of mathematics, the laws of logic and created the perfect intelligent beings to discover it all.

 

[Loudmouth]

We know that all the laws of physics that govern this universe were not involved in the birth of the universe.

Evidence?

I don't. You can. I have much more evidence that is convincing which brings me to my conclusion.

Please show us that evidence.

1. God wanted the universe to point to Him.

Why wouldn't a sole solar system point to God?

2. We are made in the image of God and in that we have intelligence and reason in which we use to discover our world. If there was nothing to understand it would be completely boring.

Multiple planets is not nothing.

3. When humans create we use methods and materials to do so. Why wouldn't God?

What methods and materials did God use? Why would these methods require a massive universe that we will never set foot on?

He chose to make the universe with the language of mathematics, the laws of logic and created the perfect intelligent beings to discover it all.

Why does this require a massive universe?

 

[Mainframes]

We are made in the image of god? If god is infinite why does he have arms, legs etc?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence?

I already gave you this information.

Please show us that evidence.

I have.

Why wouldn't a sole solar system point to God?

It isn't big enough to create life.

Multiple planets is not nothing.

I disagree.

What methods and materials did God use? Why would these methods require a massive universe that we will never set foot on?

Energy, matter, time and space. The laws of physics and the laws of logic. Mathematics.

The universe needs it mass and it age for life to exist. Do you ever read what I post?

Why does this require a massive universe?

A Universe that contained just one galaxy like our own Milky Way, with its 100 billion stars, each perhaps surrounded by planetary systems, might seem a reasonable economy if one were in the universal construction business. But such a universe, with more than a 100 billion fewer galaxies than our own, could have expanded for little more than a few months. It could have produced neither stars nor biological elements. It could contain no astronomers.
​

We know why it takes so long for life to appear in the universe – it takes billions of years for stars to form the necessary elements, and for these elements to collect into planets. It takes stars billions of years to form the elements because they are the energy source for life and thus need to be very stable. Paradoxical as it seems, endless expanses of frigid nothingness are necessary for a universe to be old enough for life to develop.


http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/fishing-while-the-world-burns-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-p-z-myers/

 

[Oncedeceived]

We are made in the image of god? If god is infinite why does he have arms, legs etc?

What?

 

[EternalDragon]

We are made in the image of god? If god is infinite why does he have arms, legs etc?

"Image", especially in the original Hebrew, does not mean carbon copy.
And we aren't infinite in the flesh. Please don't be that naive.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already gave you this information.

All you did was restate your dogmatic beliefs.

It isn't big enough to create life.

Huh? God couldn't create life on Earth because it isn't big enough?

I disagree.

Do you understand what the definition of nothing is? A gas giant the size of a million earths is not "nothing". Are you starting to understand why we get frustrated with you?

Energy, matter, time and space. The laws of physics and the laws of logic. Mathematics.

Based on what evidence?

The universe needs it mass and it age for life to exist.

Why would an omnipotent and omniscient deity need a massive universe in order to create life on a single planet? Why would an omnipotent deity need anything to create our solar system?

Did Jesus need grapes and a years time to make water into wine?

 

[bhsmte]

All you did was restate your dogmatic beliefs.




Huh? God couldn't create life on Earth because it isn't big enough?



Do you understand what the definition of nothing is? A gas giant the size of a million earths is not "nothing". Are you starting to understand why we get frustrated with you?



Based on what evidence?



Why would an omnipotent and omniscient deity need a massive universe in order to create life on a single planet? Why would an omnipotent deity need anything to create our solar system?

Did Jesus need grapes and a years time to make water into wine?

It would certainly be "cohesive" with Christian theology, that God is capable of doing anything.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I seriously don't know what you mean by your comment that professionals don't agree with fine tuning in the context of creationism/ID. Fine tuning is in context of the universal parameters and how that permits life to exist. There are conclusions that are based upon that reality and ones' own worldview. It is not surprising that scientists would not claim actual design for two reasons.

1. Science only determines the workings of the natural world.
2. The scientists hold to their own worldviews that subjectively create their own conclusions.

That being said, there are those with equally impressive credentials that believe that the appearance of design which the fine tuning creates indicates actual design. An appearance of an intent by an agent for a specific purpose does indeed provide support to the conclusion that the intent was that of an agent with a specific purpose.

By the way, thank you for using deity or deities rather than "it". I appreciate it.

-_- you should know just based on the fact that the majority of professionals in most scientific fields, even in the United States, aren't strongly religious and thus wouldn't view fine tuning in the context of a deity. And for those who do, they tend to be very generalized and noncommittal about it, kinda like how I am with many things. Plus, many of your sources come from people whom you even acknowledge do not in the end support your position. Unless you have a counter for their arguments against ID, you shouldn't use them as sources at all, because it would be like me using AnswersinGenesis all by itself to support the theory of evolution. Not only would that source by itself not support my position, but it would run completely counter to it. It doesn't make sense to try to support a position with sources that run counter to that position.

Yes, your two points are fair I suppose, but recognize that in the case of anything that falls under #2, who cares? The subjective, relatively unfounded opinions of even the greatest minds to ever exist would never be evidence for the positions they comment on. Every physicist in the world could share your subjective opinions, but so long as they don't make real observations and collect data to support it, you might as well be citing toddlers.

Again, I don't care if their IQ is 1,000, an opinion is an opinion. Your overuse and somewhat poor use of "expert" based arguments is just continuing this discussion that is getting nowhere. How many times do we have to tell you that what you are bringing up isn't actual evidence for your position for you to understand? Or at the very least stop trying to use "evidence" of this nature so as to put an end to this ridiculousness.

 

[Zosimus]

-_- you should know just based on the fact that the majority of professionals in most scientific fields, even in the United States, aren't strongly religious and thus wouldn't view fine tuning in the context of a deity.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-2.png

Seventeen percent of scientists are atheist.
Eleven percent are agnostic.
Twenty percent are nothing in particular.
Four percent refuse to say.

The other 48 percent are religious.

 

[PsychoSarah]

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-2.png

Seventeen percent of scientists are atheist.
Eleven percent are agnostic.
Twenty percent are nothing in particular.
Four percent refuse to say.

The other 48 percent are religious.

I said strongly religious. And 52% is a majority, if a slim one.

 

[Zosimus]

I said strongly religious. And 52% is a majority, if a slim one.

I think you're counting it incorrectly. As I said, 17 percent are atheist whereas 11 percent are like me, and the rest either don't say or believe in God to some extent.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think you're counting it incorrectly. As I said, 17 percent are atheist whereas 11 percent are like me, and the rest either don't say or believe in God to some extent.

Exactly, those wouldn't be strongly religious people. I never stated the majority weren't religious at all, just not strongly so.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly, those wouldn't be strongly religious people. I never stated the majority weren't religious at all, just not strongly so.

I would highly doubt, that the percentage of professional scientists being "strongly" religious is very high. In fact, I would think it would be quite small.

There are a number of studies that measure strength of religious belief, but I have not seen one that breaks it down to scientists.

One of the largest studies is one I have posted before on this board from the University of Chicago, in which they measured the strength of belief in a God. World wide, 33% of the population has what they determined, to be a "strong" belief in a God.

Belief In God: University Of Chicago Report Measures Countries With Highest And Lowest Strength

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- you should know just based on the fact that the majority of professionals in most scientific fields, even in the United States, aren't strongly religious and thus wouldn't view fine tuning in the context of a deity.

I didn't claim they would, and considering that they are not strongly religious makes my point as well. The fine tuning appears designed in that they are set as if by intent by an agent for a purpose. That is a fact. The fact then is filtered by subjective worldviews and scientific naturalism.

And for those who do, they tend to be very generalized and noncommittal about it, kinda like how I am with many things.

Which is not surprising considering the scientific realm is only concerned with scientific methodology (for the most part) and doesn't delve into the supernatural.

Plus, many of your sources come from people whom you even acknowledge do not in the end support your position.

Unless you have a counter for their arguments against ID, you shouldn't use them as sources at all, because it would be like me using AnswersinGenesis all by itself to support the theory of evolution.

That is just a straw man. I am using them as sources for the sole purpose of showing the scientific agreement of fine tuning. That they don't (or at least some of them don't) come to the conclusion of God being the fine tuner; doesn't mean that He isn't. It means that in the scientific world we look for natural causes for phenomena we find in nature. Even those who believe that God is the tuner in their scientific world do so with the mindset that they wish to find out all they can about the phenomena.

Not only would that source by itself not support my position, but it would run completely counter to it. It doesn't make sense to try to support a position with sources that run counter to that position.

The fine tuning is the fact and I am using them as support of fine tuning, not in support of my position which is supported by it.

Yes, your two points are fair I suppose, but recognize that in the case of anything that falls under #2, who cares? The subjective, relatively unfounded opinions of even the greatest minds to ever exist would never be evidence for the positions they comment on. Every physicist in the world could share your subjective opinions, but so long as they don't make real observations and collect data to support it, you might as well be citing toddlers.

They make real observations and collect data that has clearly shown that there is fine tuning of the universe.

Again, I don't care if their IQ is 1,000, an opinion is an opinion. Your overuse and somewhat poor use of "expert" based arguments is just continuing this discussion that is getting nowhere.

What makes it a poor use? The "experts" substantiate the fact that the universe is fine tuned and appears to be designed. That is my position which makes total sense and is a logical and reasonable conclusion.

How many times do we have to tell you that what you are bringing up isn't actual evidence for your position for you to understand? Or at the very least stop trying to use "evidence" of this nature so as to put an end to this ridiculousness.

It is a group of people that are claiming things that are not true and go against what the experts in their fields are claiming. Why should I just accept misinformation and misunderstandings remain? Why should you all decide what is evidence and what is not anyway? You are not the experts.

 

[Davian]

I didn't claim they would, and considering that they are not strongly religious makes my point as well. The fine tuning appears designed in that they are set as if by intent by an agent for a purpose. That is a fact. The fact then is filtered by subjective worldviews and scientific naturalism.

That you perceive design in what you think of as fine tuning is not a fact, it is opinion.

Which is not surprising considering the scientific realm is only concerned with scientific methodology (for the most part) and doesn't delve into the supernatural.

Plus, many of your sources come from people whom you even acknowledge do not in the end support your position.



That is just a straw man. I am using them as sources for the sole purpose of showing the scientific agreement of fine tuning. That they don't (or at least some of them don't) come to the conclusion of God being the fine tuner; doesn't mean that He isn't. It means that in the scientific world we look for natural causes for phenomena we find in nature. Even those who believe that God is the tuner in their scientific world do so with the mindset that they wish to find out all they can about the phenomena.



The fine tuning is the fact and I am using them as support of fine tuning, not in support of my position which is supported by it.

That constants are constant is the fact. That they can be tuned is unfalsifiable.

They make real observations and collect data that has clearly shown that there is fine tuning of the universe.

You mean, the constants are constant.

What makes it a poor use? The "experts" substantiate the fact that the universe is fine tuned and appears to be designed. That is my position which makes total sense and is a logical and reasonable conclusion.

And unfalsifiable.

It is a group of people that are claiming things that are not true and go against what the experts in their fields are claiming. Why should I just accept misinformation and misunderstandings remain? Why should you all decide what is evidence and what is not anyway? You are not the experts.

The experts that you are getting this evidence from do not posit the existence of a 'designer'. They disagree with *you*.

 

[JayFern]

It depends entirely on what the scientists were raised to believed, if they were well and truly indoctrinated into a religion they might well be scientists and religious fanatics of any religion you can name, take Francis Collins, indoctrinated into creationism so much so that his brain is unable to let it go, he is somehow able to wear two hats.

This is what I can not understand, what does a believer see when they look at believers of other faiths?
they should see themselves?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That you perceive design in what you think of as fine tuning is not a fact, it is opinion.

Actually I don't perceive anything at all. I take the information provided by information collected and tested by scientists in the field that have shown that the universe is fine tuned. This fine tuned universe appears designed due to the fact that there is an appearance that it is by intent by an agent for a purpose.

My opinion, (which is an opinion) is that the appearance that there is an intent by an agent for a purpose does support my position that there is a fine tuner.

That constants are constant is the fact. That they can be tuned is unfalsifiable.

The fact that they are constant is a fact, along with the fact that they are set at values that are necessary for life to exist. They can be different according to those in the field and that can be falsified by scientific methods used in this area and all other areas of Science.

You mean, the constants are constant.

No, the fact that they are constant is not what is being discussed in fine tuning.

And unfalsifiable.

False.

The experts that you are getting this evidence from do not posit the existence of a 'designer'. They disagree with *you*.

Some not all. Yet, they do support the point being made which is the universe is fine tuned and appears to be fine tuned with an intent by an agent for a purpose. That some of them do not agree that this appearance of an intent by an agent for a purpose actually is designed with intent by an agent for a purpose is only made from their subjective conclusions and have nothing to do with the scientific evidence that suggests it.

 

[Loudmouth]

This fine tuned universe appears designed due to the fact that there is an appearance that it is by intent by an agent for a purpose.

How so? What causes this appearance?

The fact that they are constant is a fact, along with the fact that they are set at values that are necessary for life to exist.

In every lottery drawing, there is a complex interaction of ping pong balls necessary to for the person who wins. That would make the lottery fine tuned by your definition.

Some not all. Yet, they do support the point being made which is the universe is fine tuned and appears to be fine tuned with an intent by an agent for a purpose.

What produces that appearance?

 

[Davian]

Actually I don't perceive anything at all.

You don't perceive design anymore?

I take the information provided by information collected and tested by scientists in the field that have shown that the universe is fine tuned.

They show that the constants are constant.

This fine tuned universe appears designed due to the fact that there is an appearance that it is by intent by an agent for a purpose.

That it appears designed is not a fact.

My opinion, (which is an opinion) is that the appearance that there is an intent by an agent for a purpose does support my position that there is a fine tuner.

And you have no other evidence for this "designer" other than your religious presuppositions? Correct?

The fact that they are constant is a fact, along with the fact that they are set at values that are necessary for life to exist. They can be different according to those in the field and that can be falsified by scientific methods used in this area and all other areas of Science.

You have yet to demonstrate that the tuning is falsifiable.

No, the fact that they are constant is not what is being discussed in fine tuning.

Please state clearly when you mean "tuning" and where you mean "the constants are constant".

False.

True. You have yet to demonstrate that the tuning is falsifiable, and you have conceded that "design" is unfalsifiable.

Some not all. Yet, they do support the point being made which is the universe is fine tuned and appears to be fine tuned with an intent by an agent for a purpose. That some of them do not agree that this appearance of an intent by an agent for a purpose actually is designed with intent by an agent for a purpose is only made from their subjective conclusions and have nothing to do with the scientific evidence that suggests it.

So who are you to disagree with the experts? Just so you can have a god?