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.
No, I have said many times that I come here for the lulz.
Do you not wonder at times what "unfalsifiable" means?
Why would it not be supportive of actual design? Please explain.
Your determination of the fine tuning as being superficial is not valid according to the scientists that have researched it.
It is far from twisted and even scientists that do not believe in God feel it is significant.
Do you think that a computer's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that an automobile's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that space station's appearance of design denotes a designer?
If a person from another world found any of these without sign of life or of designers would they just believe it was an appearance rather than actual?
Regardless of what you feel the cause, the appearance of design always supports the possibility of actual design and denying it makes you seem a little irrational.
Because something can look like it is designed without actually being designed. Clouds that have the appearance of bunnies are not really bunnies.
Really? Most scientists would disagree:
in terms of the tolerance permitted, this example pales into insignificance when we consider the fineness of the tuning of some of the other parameters in nature. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 1016, no stars could have formed.
The problem that you seem not to get is that the "appearance" is not what it "looks" like.
It is not 'seeing' a pattern in clouds or toast.
It is a significant problem that is causing scientists to go to great lengths to explain.
It is more than the appearance of design. It is the actual evidence for design in these objects that leads to the conclusion of design.
They would find signs of human manufacture that would point to design, such as maker marks, tool marks, etc. None of these things are found in the appearance of our universe, the Earth, or life.
It also supports the possiblity of no design.
What something looks like IS BY DEFINITION ITS APPEARANCE!
Yes, it is. That is exactly what is going on.
And yet none of those explanations are "a designer did it"
Significant for what?
This is another of your vague statements.
Lets put it this way, there are things in life that appear to be something by just looking at them, but once investigated they only "looked" like they were what they seemed to be. In this case, it took investigating the universe to find the appearance of design.
No, I am sorry but that is not whatsoever what is going on. We don't see patterns in the constants of the universe. We see very precise requirements to the values that our universe's existence and we ourselves require to exist. These are not just bunnies in the clouds but real values that must be what they are for the universe or life on earth to exist.
That is only because of worldviews, the restrictions of science and the progress of understanding of the way the universe works.
Scientists know that the values that we find in our universe could happen by chance. They call this the fine tuning problem and they have went to great lengths to come up with explanations that can eliminate the problem.
Yet another set of facts we have to keep presenting you.
"Epsilon (ε, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang"
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epsilon can differ by more than 10% in both directions (more than 20% overall). That is not "fine" tuning. That is a LOT of wiggle room. Not only that, but that wiggle room is based on the assumption that all other constants stay the same. If Epsilon ventures out of that 20% wiggle room, it can still be compensated for by changes in other constants. There is even MORE wiggle room.
Let's see Davies own writings on this matter.
There are those that might have some wiggle room if that is how you see it but they are not significant enough for physicists to alter their conclusions of fine tuning.
How does this change anything?
The same could be said for every universe and the unique features found in that universe. That is where the false appearance of design comes from. It comes from the human bias that we are the center of the universe, and the purpose for the creation of the universe.
It is because you have no evidence to back your claims. All you use are semantic tricks to make it appear as if you have an argument when you really don't. Notice how the word "appear" is used in context.
It isn't a conclusion. Here you go again with semantics. They say that it appears fine tuned which is not evidence for actual design.
Let me ask you, do you think that physicists and astrophysicists are incorrect when they claim the universe is fine tuned and has the appearance of design?
1. We do not have any evidence for other universes.
2. We do know that life permitting universes would be extremely rare.
3. There are so many requirements and consequences from them that for this universe even to exist stretches the plausibility of it being just the way it is without explanation.
Why if there were no design type features that scientists that do not include God explanations that they would not reference those types of features to describe the universe?
I never claimed they said it was actual design.
That the universe has featured that are best explained by appearing designed is not just a insignificant phrase that holds no meaning.
The actual fine tuning is real.
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?