No. We've been over this far too many times, once. It is not "observed" that the universe is fine tuned since that would require observing the process of the "tuning" by a "tuner".
We have been over this time and time again and the problem lies with you. Fine tuning is not a term I made up or is a religious one. Fine tuning is the scientific term used for the phenomena observed and tested for the values of the universe.
No poo, Sherlock!
The values themselves are what they are and they don't hint at why they are what they are. In the minds of certain people, they might appear to be a certain way. In the minds of others, they might appear another way. It's not all that interesting.
Again, you are either misinformed about fine tuning or simply ignorant. They don't "appear" a certain way or another. They are what they are. What you are confusing is the fact that some feel they appear designed and others don't, which is an accurate account.
So you feel that astrophysicists/cosmologists/physicists are making invalid assertions?
"So"??
Fascinating how you accept the tests and experiments from astrophysictists when you feel like you can use them to validate your a priori beliefs, but not the tests and experiments from biologists when they seem to contradict your a priori beliefs.
I do? Example?
Yeah... once people demand evidence for suggested explanations, it becomes hard to contemplate things for which no evidence exists ha...
Obviously there is evidence that points to God that you dismiss. It is hardly something that is devoid of evidence. You just won't except it as evidence. You demand evidence and then dismiss it when it is used to support the existence of God.
Errr... evolution theory is a working theory with practical application. It doesn't include any designers. I'm not assuming anything.
Yes, you are assuming that evolution is possible without any aid of God. That is an assumption based on your own worldview. There are plenty of incidences where evolution is silent on how something arose. There are plenty of incidences of no evidence prior to something evolving. The Cambrian is an excellent example.
Your statement is as bizar as saying that "you have no reason to assume gravity is possible without magical graviton fairies".
Gravity is another example. How do you know that gravity is possible without God? What evidence provides that information?
Actually, that's exactly what "viable and sufficient" means. That including any designing entities in the process is obsolete. It's not necessary at all. The processes we know of are more then capable of producing the variation that we see in life today.
New information about the inner processes of an organism to evolve is now pointing to a different aspect of diversity. Genetic engineering is being seen as our technology gets better.
Does it mean that no designers were involved at all? No. But, again, to suggest they were would require evidence.
There are too many unknowns about ToE in the past and we can't see macroevolution in the present to determine God is not needed in anyway. You make that assumption due to your worldview rather than any evidence against it.
Sorry, that ship has already sailed.
The facts of genetics have already disproven the claim that a god was necessary.
How?
No, it did not prove that gods weren't involved at all. Nothing could ever disprove such a negative. But, once more, if you wish to suggest a god was involved, then the burden of proof is on you.
The point in this entire discussion is that exact thing. It is more cohesive and the evidence supports that the fine tuning of the universe points to design. That is taking on that burden of proof which you dismiss out of hand by either denying that fine tuning exists, or that the result of that fine tuning appears designed even to those who do not believe a God exists.
It's not "a priori". It's after centuries of investigation and study.
Oh yes, it is. Modern science began as an exercise in determining how God worked in the universe based on the metaphysical aspects of an orderly and lawful universe able to be comprehended by intelligent beings. It was only later that the scientific arena began to be a naturalistic endeavor devoid of God.
Good question. First of all, it's not a naturalistic system per say. It's a system that looks for natural causes for natural effects. You can call it naturalistic and it wouldn't be that incorrect. But you should first ask yourself why it looks for natural causes. And the answer is simple:
- the supernatural is defined as being unknowable, as something that can't be studied or observed
- nothing supports the existence of the supernatural.
That is simply false. It is due to the fact that God created an orderly universe with laws and processes that could be understood. Science rests on that premise. IF it were not for the fact that the universe is created in such a way that makes science possible.
In fact, if the supernatural would actually exist, it would simply be part of the workings of the universe. Ie, it would become "natural".
Or like you considered solely responsible for it.
Genesis is another topic for another time.
Sure. It's called "theistic evolution". And they still desperatly try to pile on extra things on the theory that aren't necessary and which aren't supported. But I can at least respect those attempts. At least they are trying to reconcile reality with what they believe. Unlike some other people, who simply refuse to acknowledge the facts of reality in a rational way.
Everyone on earth tries to reconcile their beliefs. That is what we do, we search for truth.
What are you talking about?
What alternative to science has a better track record to differentiate what is true from what is false?
Science is an approximation of truth, it is a system of checks and balances that provides error correction to findings in nature. It progresses knowledge about the world we life in. It finds "truth" and then corrects that truth to another truth when new information is accessed. How can a system that you claim is 99% of all ideas in science are wrong. When do you know that you are into truth? I agree it is a great system that progresses us forward ever forward and tells us a great deal but truth is not necessarily what it tells us in an absolute manner.
Historical truth. There is no way to show scientifically that John Kennedy was the youngest man elected for president.
Logical truth. If we were to say "Science is the only way to really know truth" we would refuting that statement by logic as there is no way to scientifically test that statement. Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.
Moral truth. Science can't tell us rape is evil.
Experimental truth. Science can't tell whether or not my husband loves me.
Existential truth. It can not prove that we are not just a brain in a jar. It can't prove we are not experiencing Last Thursday-ism.
Ok. That works with the natural world. There are things that science can not provide evidence for as I've shown above. Things can be true without being able to provide evidence for them.
I'ld be absolutely shocked and extremely fascinated. And, off course, I'ld accept the evidence of reality and move on
Why would you be shocked? You yourself said that Science progresses.
(ps: what would be falsified would then be the actual theory, which is mostly natural selection. Common ancestry is not a theory. That's a genetic fact. Life evolved. That's a fact. The actual theory is about the mechanism that made it evolve).
So tell me how that is a genetic fact considering lateral and horizontal gene transfer, not to mention Epigenetics.
Then we will have learned something new. Again, it's called progress.
Yes, which was my point.
Then you should pay more attention, because plenty of them are on this forum. You're one of them, actually.
Examples?
