Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Loudmouth]

Yes, if Rees is right and if he can substantiate the multiverse the impression of design might be illusory. That is if and only if an explanation can be shown such as the multiverse that the appearance of design could be illusory.

But you don't have to lift a finger to show that our universe was designed? Everyone else has to present evidence for their claims, but you don't have to present any evidence that the universe is designed?

There are many issues about the multiverse that come into play as well. It doesn't take the fine tuning problem away.

If it is real, yes it does, as even Davies admits.

Regardless, they are not claiming it is their imagination or bunnies in clouds, they are claiming that the appearance of design has to be explained and if it is the appearance is illusory.

All observations need to be explained. The problem is that you are not interested in explaining them. Instead, you offer a God of the Gaps which is not an explanation at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, and I have given you quotes where physicists claim that the appearance of fine tuning is an illusion which is what is meant by the "bunnies in clouds" analogy. I have backed up my claims.

I really can't believe she's this dense. She must be putting you on.

 

[bhsmte]

I really can't believe she's this dense. She must be putting you on.

Much more to do with need, as opposed to being dense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But you don't have to lift a finger to show that our universe was designed? Everyone else has to present evidence for their claims, but you don't have to present any evidence that the universe is designed?

I haven't claimed the universe is designed. I have claimed that there is an appearance of design of our universe.

If it is real, yes it does, as even Davies admits.

No he doesn't. I posted the quote from him on multiverse.

All observations need to be explained. The problem is that you are not interested in explaining them. Instead, you offer a God of the Gaps which is not an explanation at all.

God of the gaps is used in place of an absence of knowledge we are not lacking knowledge. We know what the requirements for life were and how the universe supplied that prior to life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is your claim.

"I doubt that extremely educated experienced astrophysicists would be to keen on your claiming they are seeing bunnies in clouds."

Prove it.

I can't believe you. You made the claim and I commented about it. It is your burden to prove it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, and I have given you quotes where physicists claim that the appearance of fine tuning is an illusion which is what is meant by the "bunnies in clouds" analogy. I have backed up my claims.

No, you have not. You have a quote that states that if a fellow astrophysicist is correct about the mulitverse, Davies feels the appearance could be illusory. Right now, it is not being shown to be an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So when you say "problem", you mean an area of research, or a question that scientists are working on. Is that it?

All you have been arguing for is a God of the Gaps from the very beginning?

Right now the appearance of design has no explanation that would dispel the appearance of design. Rees feels that a multiverse would be that explanation that would give reason for the appearance of design. It is not a God of the Gaps argument, we know that the appearance is there and there must be a reason for it. It is either actual or there is another reason that it looks like it is designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I really can't believe she's this dense. She must be putting you on.

The difficulty doesn't lie with me. Either the appearance of design is actual design, or has another possible answer. IF that answer according to Rees is that there is a multiverse system he feels that the appearance of design is illusory. I disagree due to the reasons set forth by Davies.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you have not. You have a quote that states that if a fellow astrophysicist is correct about the mulitverse, Davies feels the appearance could be illusory. Right now, it is not being shown to be an illusion.

Right now it hasn't been shown to be real.

 

[Loudmouth]

The difficulty doesn't lie with me. Either the appearance of design is actual design, or has another possible answer.

Where is the evidence demonstrating that it is actual design?

IF that answer according to Rees is that there is a multiverse system he feels that the appearance of design is illusory. I disagree due to the reasons set forth by Davies.

"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies

You are the one who is disagreeing with the physicists.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can't believe you. You made the claim and I commented about it. It is your burden to prove it.

And I have. Both Rees and Davies think that the universe is not designed. Therefore, they obviously feel that the appearance of design is illusory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I haven't claimed the universe is designed. I have claimed that there is an appearance of design of our universe.

You also claim that actual design is supported by the evidence which is the same as claiming that it is designed. You claim that the universe is fine tuned which is a direct claim that the universe was fine tuned.

No he doesn't. I posted the quote from him on multiverse.

If the multiverse is real, then the universe is not fine tuned.

Your God of the Gaps holds the same problems as well. Where did God come from? What about the realm that God resides in? Where did that come from?

God of the gaps is used in place of an absence of knowledge we are not lacking knowledge.

So you can present evidence demonstrating that the multiverse is false?

We know what the requirements for life were and how the universe supplied that prior to life.

That is not the knowledge we need, and you know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I have. Both Rees and Davies think that the universe is not designed. Therefore, they obviously feel that the appearance of design is illusory.

They do not believe the appearance of design is from actual design no. Yet, they do not feel that the appearance of design is an illusion unless it can be shown that there is a reason it appears that way and is not actual.

 

[Loudmouth]

They do not believe the appearance of design is from actual design no.

Just like the appearance of bunnies in clouds is not from actually being bunnies. Hence, the analogy.

Yet, they do not feel that the appearance of design is an illusion unless it can be shown that there is a reason it appears that way and is not actual.

If they do not believe that there is design, then how can they believe that the appearance of design is due to actual design?

 

[bhsmte]

They do not believe the appearance of design is from actual design no. Yet, they do not feel that the appearance of design is an illusion unless it can be shown that there is a reason it appears that way and is not actual.

Once, you never cease to amaze me.

If the people in question, do not believe the universe is designed, they obviously don't believe any appearance of design, means anything, when it comes to reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You also claim that actual design is supported by the evidence which is the same as claiming that it is designed. You claim that the universe is fine tuned which is a direct claim that the universe was fine tuned.

What I claim is that the universe appears designed which supports that the universe could possibly be designed.

If the multiverse is real, then the universe is not fine tuned.

It remains fine tuned but it gives the fine tuning a way to be there. IF the multiverse were true (and how would we even know but that is beside the point) it would mean that the fine tuning in this universe came about by the possibility of this type of universe being a spin off from a great number of universes (possibly an infinity of universes) which gives the possibility of this universe being as it is due to that. IT takes a great multitude of universes to even provide the possibility of this universe to exist.

IF this multiverse system would be true then the fine tuning values would have to be present in that system and it only pushes the fine tuning to another level.

Your God of the Gaps holds the same problems as well. Where did God come from? What about the realm that God resides in? Where did that come from?

Scientifically that is correct. How much more cohesive is a designer with a universe that appears designed than with a multiverse that needs 10 to the 500th power of universes to give rise to one like ours?

So you can present evidence demonstrating that the multiverse is false?

I don't claim that the multiverse exists.

That is not the knowledge we need, and you know it.

Why not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, you never cease to amaze me.

If the people in question, do not believe the universe is designed, they obviously don't believe any appearance of design, means anything, when it comes to reality.

That is completely false. There is a great deal of research ongoing to find the reason this fine tuning is present in this universe.

 

[bhsmte]

What I claim is that the universe appears designed which supports that the universe could possibly be designed.




It remains fine tuned but it gives the fine tuning a way to be there. IF the multiverse were true (and how would we even know but that is beside the point) it would mean that the fine tuning in this universe came about by the possibility of this type of universe being a spin off from a great number of universes (possibly an infinity of universes) which gives the possibility of this universe being as it is due to that. IT takes a great multitude of universes to even provide the possibility of this universe to exist.

IF this multiverse system would be true then the fine tuning values would have to be present in that system and it only pushes the fine tuning to another level.


Scientifically that is correct. How much more cohesive is a designer with a universe that appears designed than with a multiverse that needs 10 to the 500th power of universes to give rise to one like ours?



I don't claim that the multiverse exists.





Why not?

Appearance of design is equal to; support for design?

Then why not:

No objective verifiable evidence of a God is equal to; support for there not being a God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just like the appearance of bunnies in clouds is not from actually being bunnies. Hence, the analogy.

The fine tuning is real. Few deny it. It is not like bunnies in the clouds.

If they do not believe that there is design, then how can they believe that the appearance of design is due to actual design?

They don't that is why they are looking for a way to show there is a multiverse system.

 

[bhsmte]

That is completely false. There is a great deal of research ongoing to find the reason this fine tuning is present in this universe.

What is false?

Do these scientists believe the universe is designed? Yes or no?

If no, what does that tell you?