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.
The standard model did make specific predictions about what should be observed at certain energies, so it was falsifiable. They just had to wait to build the experiment to test it.
The ability to predict the outcome of experiments made it verifiable.
Irony at its greatest.
Straw man.Opinion at best.
Their position is not the same as yours. None of them are claiming that God created the universe.
That's not what falsifiability / verifiability means in context of scientific models, once.
A scientific model needs to be testable / falsifiable in order to be a valid scientific model. And that does not mean that the test must be able to be conducted in this moment.
If you have a testable model, but conducting the test costs 5 billion dollars and you only have 3 dollars, then your model doesn't magically become "untestable". It still IS testable. It makes predictions that can be checked. You might not have the resources or the technology required to set up the experiment, but an experiment can be set up.
An unfalsifiable / untestable model is a model that can never be tested. No matter what technology or resources you have at your disposal.
For example, consider the claim that there is an undetectable dragon standing next to you. That can never be tested. Not with all the money in the world, not with any technology that exists or that will ever exist. Because the dragon is defined as being undetectable. That's an unfalsifiable, untestable model.
Do you understand now? I can't explain it any simpler....
This is your problem. That is not what is claimed. It IS fine tuned. It is a real phenomena. The real fine tuning APPEARS DESIGNED. You continue to get confused on that. The fine tuning is the scientific term that scientists have used to define the phenomena of the values of the universe being to the exact measurement for life to exist. It APPEARS DESIGNED due to the fact that those values could have been different but they are exactly where they need to be for life to exist. It APPEARS as if they were planned with an intent of an agent for a purpose. Do you get it now?I seem to remember you saying that your claim is that the universe appears to be fine tuned.
Now, you seem to be hinting that it is already an established fact that it is "fine tuned" and that that fact gives it the appearance of design.
So, what's that about?
Which is it?
It also support the possibility that it is not designed and simply appears to be so. So what is your point?
I didn't claim it incorporated God's actions? Straw man.
All the predictions in the world without being able to observe it makes it just a prediction without a way to test it.
That was the point. The ability to predict the outcome of experiments does not verify without a way to verify.
I didn't make that claim. I have repeated the claim yet you continue to ignore it. My claim is that the fine tuning of the universe appears to be designed. That appearance supports that the universe is possibly designed.
You are misusing the fine tuning argument. The premise is that the values the universe holds are precisely what are required for life to exist.
Without a consequence for fine tuning it would be a non-issue.
Exactly what I said. Yet, it was not falsifiable until that was built.
Yet, we find that the Multiverse is being hypothesized and it is not objectively able to be tested at all. It is being considered by some a valid scientific theory.
OnceTo be scientific an hypothesis must be testable at least in theory. It does not have to testable right now but it must have the capability of being so at some time. If it is not testable then it is not science. It may be interesting and may be discussed by scientists but it is not science. It is that simple.
Because when you make statements like this it clearly indicates that you do not understand the idea of testability in science.
DizreduxAt the time it was unfalsifiable without the means to falsify it. The particle was unverifiable without the means to find it.
And thus starts the part of the discussion where you run away from your previous statements.
There was a way to test it. It was called "building the LHC".
But it does make it verifiable.
What makes it appear to be designed? Why do you always bring up fine tuning when people ask for evidence for God?
True. Are you saying though that nothing can be known except through scientific methods?
This is your problem. That is not what is claimed. It IS fine tuned. It is a real phenomena. The real fine tuning APPEARS DESIGNED.
It APPEARS DESIGNED due to the fact that those values could have been different but they are exactly where they need to be for life to exist.
It APPEARS as if they were planned with an intent of an agent for a purpose.
DizreduxOnce Because when you make statements like this it clearly indicates that you do not understand the idea of testability in science.
Dizredux
Yes. Prior to that there was no way to verify it, which was my point.
Only when it can be done.
What makes it appear to be designed is that it appears since the values are so fine tuned to allow life that it looks as if it were an intent planned by an agent for a purpose.
UHHH, I don't. I say that it supports God's existence.
Sometimes all I can do is shake my head and give up.Really? what clearly indicates that?
Do you understand the difference between unverified and unverifiable? Those aren't the same word, nor do they mean the same thing.
False. If you can produce a set of potential observations that would falsify a hypothesis, then you have a verifiable hypothesis.
Why does it give that appearance of intent?
That means the same thing.
It couldn't possibly be that you have misunderstood what I am saying right?Sometimes all I can do is shake my head and give up.
Dizredux
Don't blame you. I made that decision a few days ago. It is, what it is.
Good grief. Something that is verifiable is something that with the right equipment or technology can be verified.
That the "dials" are set in such a way as to make life possible as if planned that way.
No it isn't.
Then the Higgs boson wasn verifiable since it could be tested for using the LHC.
The same way in which the "dials" are set in such a way as to make specific people win the lottery. The lottery has the same appearance of design that our universe has.
Yes, it is. When you say that something is supported it means that you have evidence. That is what those words mean. Please stop using weasel words.
Like I have said many times, it would not be like someone winning the lottery once, but over and over like over 30 times. Someone would be calling it rigged.
Where is the evidence of the UCA? I want either a fossil or the actual UCA.
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?