Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Upvote
0
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.
How so? What causes this appearance?
What are you asking?
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.
The lottery system is a designed system in which an agent (designer) has the intent (someone to win) for a purpose (to raise money). So yes, thelottery is a designed system created by an intelligent agent for a reason.
What produces that appearance?
The values in the universe appearing like someone has set the dials specifically intentionally for the purpose of life.
What are you asking?
The lottery system is a designed system in which an agent (designer) has the intent (someone to win) for a purpose (to raise money).
The values in the universe appearing like someone has set the dials specifically intentionally for the purpose of life.
You don't perceive design anymore?
They show that the constants are constant.
That it appears designed is not a fact.
And you have no other evidence for this "designer" other than your religious presuppositions? Correct?
You have yet to demonstrate that the tuning is falsifiable.
Please state clearly when you mean "tuning" and where you mean "the constants are constant".
True. You have yet to demonstrate that the tuning is falsifiable, and you have conceded that "design" is unfalsifiable.
So who are you to disagree with the experts? Just so you can have a god?
How does a narrow range of constants needed for life point to design?
So you are saying that the agent pre-determines who the winner will be, and then fine tunes the ping pong balls so that specific person wins?
What gives that appearance?
Noted.I have never perceived design, I don't have the training to make the observations needed to determine fine tuning and how that appears as if it were designed.
No, it is not a fact. It does not appear designed to me.They do, however, that is not what this discussion is about.
No, actually it is a fact.
Yet you say experts disagree with this. You have a presupposed conclusion, because you have to have a god.Like I have said repeatedly, the evidence of fine tuning supports design. It is a reasonable and logical conclusion.
Unevidenced assertion.I don't have to the scientists have done so.
Unevidenced assertion.What I mean by tuning is not significant. What the astrophysicists/cosmologists/physicists mean when they say tuning is that the constants could have had different values but the values they have are so precise and necessary to allow for the existence of life.
Unevidenced assertion.The constants being constant are not in context with this discussion.
The scientists in the field have determined that fine tuning is falsifiable.
You have conceded that design is unfalsifiable. With that, you have lost all support for it.I am claiming that the appearance of design, an intent by an agent for a purpose which is very recognizable and supports design.
Do you place so little value on the opinion of the experts?First of all I don't need anyone to agree with me so I can have God.
Unevidenced assertion.God makes that possible.
Data of which, as you conceded at the top of your post, you lack the training to make the observations needed to determine fine tuning and design.I can disagree with conclusions that are made by opinion. I am not disagreeing with the scientific data.
I have explained this many times, just what are you not getting?
I am saying that the lottery system is a designed system that has been designed for the purpose of raising money by people buying tickets to win the lottery.
I am saying that the lottery system is a designed system that has been designed for the purpose of raising money by people buying tickets to win the lottery.
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of Christianity.
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God the design argument of Paley updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Noted.
No, it is not a fact. It does not appear designed to me.
Are you an astrophysicist/cosmologist/physicist?
Yet you say experts disagree with this. You have a presupposed conclusion, because you have to have a god.
I said that some experts do not come to that conclusion. There are those that do as well.
Unevidenced assertion.
I've presented documentation for the evidence.
Unevidenced assertion.
Unevidenced assertion.
I believe they do have the evidence that they need to determine that. I have presented Luke Barnes and his evidence that provides falsification.
You have conceded that design is unfalsifiable. With that, you have lost all support for it.
I don't recall claiming that design was unfalsifiable or the context in which I might have.
Do you place so little value on the opinion of the experts?
There are no "experts" on God.
Unevidenced assertion.
I have shown that.
Data of which, as you conceded at the top of your post, you lack the training to make the observations needed to determine fine tuning and design.
Exactly. That is how Scientific data works. We have people that have been educated in their fields to do the testing and experimenting to collect the data and present the findings.
You dodge this question every time.
That is not what I am talking about, and you know it. This is another example of how you dodge and deceive.
Keep dodging.
Could you use more ellipses? Are you really serious with this?
Why?
What is the plan? Where is the evidence for it?
Why does he say that?
Temptation is not appearance.
Why does it supply "prima facie evidence of deistic design"?
I've answered and it must be not to your liking because you continue to ask after getting an answer.
Projection.
It is called an answer.
You asked.
Ask him.
The evidence is what makes him think there is a plan.
Due to the fine tuning...remember.
It appears designed.
No, but the point is that the appearance of design is an opinion, not a fact. Saying that it is a fact does not make it a fact.Are you an astrophysicist/cosmologist/physicist?
All of the experts that you have presented here say "it seems" or "it appears" like there is fine tuning. If they have a god, it is a separate presupposition.I said that some experts do not come to that conclusion. There are those that do as well.
Not for the falsification of "tuning".I've presented documentation for the evidence.
I believe they do have the evidence that they need to determine that. I have presented Luke Barnes and his evidence that provides falsification.
Here.I don't recall claiming that design was unfalsifiable or the context in which I might have.
Twisting my words? Why do you disagree with the experts on the data?There are no "experts" on God.
You have not shown any such thing.I have shown that.
And you disagree with their findings.Exactly. That is how Scientific data works. We have people that have been educated in their fields to do the testing and experimenting to collect the data and present the findings.
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.
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.
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.
They make real observations and collect data that has clearly shown that there is fine tuning of the universe.
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.
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.
Appearance of design, again, is only evidence for a shallow observation that holds no actual sway on how likely the universe is designed. Under a microscope, snowflakes can look like valuable crystals, yet in reality they are just frozen water that will quickly melt.
Which is also why scientists make no conclusions on the existence of deities in scientific papers. Some like to dabble in philosophy, but anyone who tries to claim a scientific basis for such conclusions is full of baloney.
Except they don't actually agree with you. Most of them, anyways. Just because they put a shallow observation in their papers doesn't make the fact that their papers often work to DESTROY that shallow observation just disappear.
Fine-tuning is no more a fact than the existence of an afterlife for plants is a fact.
No, if fine-tuning had been supported to that great of an extent, I wouldn't even be debating you about this.
What makes it a poor use is that you use experts who, in their work, often destroy your position, to support your position. It is more counter-intuitive than using a flame thrower to put out a fire. Sure, some of your personal arguments make sense, but this particular practice just confuses the crap out of me.
We aren't asking you to accept our position, we are asking you to stop using sources that don't agree with you as if they support your position.
I see you are not really interested in my answers.Yet another dodge.
Yet another dodge.
Another dodge.
Another dodge.
Another dodge.
Why does that evidence indicate a plan?
Why does fine tuning point to a plan or design?
WHY?
No, but the point is that the appearance of design is an opinion, not a fact. Saying that it is a fact does not make it a fact.
All of the experts that you have presented here say "it seems" or "it appears" like there is fine tuning. If they have a god, it is a separate presupposition.
Not for the falsification of "tuning".
Twisting my words? Why do you disagree with the experts on the data?
You have not shown any such thing.
And you disagree with their findings.
Appearance of design, again, is only evidence for a shallow observation that holds no actual sway on how likely the universe is designed. Under a microscope, snowflakes can look like valuable crystals, yet in reality they are just frozen water that will quickly melt.
Which is also why scientists make no conclusions on the existence of deities in scientific papers. Some like to dabble in philosophy, but anyone who tries to claim a scientific basis for such conclusions is full of baloney.
Except they don't actually agree with you. Most of them, anyways. Just because they put a shallow observation in their papers doesn't make the fact that their papers often work to DESTROY that shallow observation just disappear.
Fine-tuning is no more a fact than the existence of an afterlife for plants is a fact.
No, if fine-tuning had been supported to that great of an extent, I wouldn't even be debating you about this.
What makes it a poor use is that you use experts who, in their work, often destroy your position, to support your position.
It is more counter-intuitive than using a flame thrower to put out a fire. Sure, some of your personal arguments make sense, but this particular practice just confuses the crap out of me.
We aren't asking you to accept our position, we are asking you to stop using sources that don't agree with you as if they support your position.
Appearance of design, again, is only evidence for a shallow observation that holds no actual sway on how likely the universe is designed. Under a microscope, snowflakes can look like valuable crystals, yet in reality they are just frozen water that will quickly melt.
Which is also why scientists make no conclusions on the existence of deities in scientific papers. Some like to dabble in philosophy, but anyone who tries to claim a scientific basis for such conclusions is full of baloney.
Except they don't actually agree with you. Most of them, anyways. Just because they put a shallow observation in their papers doesn't make the fact that their papers often work to DESTROY that shallow observation just disappear.
Fine-tuning is no more a fact than the existence of an afterlife for plants is a fact.
No, if fine-tuning had been supported to that great of an extent, I wouldn't even be debating you about this.
What makes it a poor use is that you use experts who, in their work, often destroy your position, to support your position. It is more counter-intuitive than using a flame thrower to put out a fire. Sure, some of your personal arguments make sense, but this particular practice just confuses the crap out of me.
We aren't asking you to accept our position, we are asking you to stop using sources that don't agree with you as if they support your position.
Dodge. You claimed the appearance of design was a fact.I never claimed that Design was a fact.
All of the experts that you have presented here say "it seems" or "it appears" like there is fine tuning. Not a fact. As for your God, it is still a no-show.That is simply false. The experts are saying that the fine tuning is real (a fact) but God is separate.
You can't show me where you have shown that the 'tuning' is falsifiable, can you?Yes, for "tuning".
Nope.
Originally Posted by Davian
I do not know what you mean by "apparent" design. As for "design" of the universe, from what you have posted, yes. When you admitted that you lack access to other universes for comparison purposes, you rendered your "design" claim unfalsifiable.
I know the chance of you directly answering a question put to you is near zero, but, tell me, from a scientific point of view, are unfalsifiable claims:
1) significant, or
2) insignificant?
Answer with a 1 or a 2.
I was answering the unlined question. It had nothing to do with the "design" appearance.
Your statement about God was an unevidenced assertion, was it not? You disagree with the consensus of experts that say the appearance of design is only an illusion, do you not?Originally Posted by Oncedeceived
You said: Do you place so little value on the opinion of the experts?I said: There are no "experts" on God.
AS you can see, this was not in regards to data but my statement about God not data and it is you twisting words.
You cannot show where, can you?I have.
The consensus of the experts you have cited conclude that the appearance of design is an illusion. Do you agree with that?No I don't.
I would agree with you.
Also, the poster states; the appearance of design supports design, but then she goes on to state; she isn't claiming the universe is designed though.
Is that confusing to anyone else, or is it just me.
So in other words we see appearances of design and we see appearances of patterns of similarities in organisms but we are going to go with the conclusion that it is all natural in origin because.....??....an intelligent designer can't be an answer?
I have seen many scientific sources that get things right and also get things wrong (from the Christian perspective) in the same source. A lot of it is assumptions based on the naturalistic viewpoint mixed in with the facts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?