Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

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?

One must then deny the values that are appearing fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

In order to be support, design would need to be testable and falsifiable which it isn't. What you have is a dogmatic religious belief that is impervious to evidence and reason.

It remains fine tuned . . .

Fine tuning implies a tuner. No tuner, no tuning. Can you name the outcome of any other random or chance process that is described as being fine tuned? Do we describe the outcome of a lottery as being fine tuned for the winner?

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.

Wouldn't this also be true for a designer?

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?

Where did the universe that produced the designer come from?

Why not?

Using your posts as an example, my answer is "Because". That seems to be the kind of vague, non-answer that you prefer.

 

[bhsmte]

One must then deny the values that are appearing fine tuned.

Nope.

Appearance of design = support of design in your mind.

So:

No objective verifiable evidence of a God = support for there not being a God.

No denial necessary, because no objective evidence exists, that points to a God.

 

[Loudmouth]

One must then deny the values that are appearing fine tuned.

In order to deny fine tuning in a lottery, do we have to deny the lottery numbers?

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope.

Appearance of design = support of design in your mind.

So:

No objective verifiable evidence of a God = support for there not being a God.

No denial necessary, because no objective evidence exists, that points to a God.

Exactly!

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is false?

That the fine tuning is meaningless. They understand that these values are not just from chance there are too many and too many are independent of the others. You are misrepresenting the scientists to claim that.

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

No.

If no, what does that tell you?

It tells me several things. It tells me that they understand that the design in the universe might have possibility if the multiverse system could be shown to be true and the meta-laws shown to be possible in a naturalistic way. It tells me that with any evidence or data that subjective conclusions can be drawn from them. Both for me and the scientists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In order to deny fine tuning in a lottery, do we have to deny the lottery numbers?

Your misunderstanding is showing.

 

[Loudmouth]

That the fine tuning is meaningless. They understand that these values are not just from chance . . .

Who is they, and where is the evidence to back this claim?

It tells me several things. It tells me that they understand that the design in the universe might have possibility if the multiverse system could be shown to be true and the meta-laws shown to be possible in a naturalistic way. It tells me that with any evidence or data that subjective conclusions can be drawn from them. Both for me and the scientists.

It tells us that these scientists do not think that the universe is designed by a deity. Therefore, they they think that the appearance of design is illusory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your misunderstanding is showing.

Then clear it up for me.

If there is only 1 result out of a possible 150 million results for a specific person to win, wouldn't the lottery be fine tuned if it hit that very improbable result almost every time?

 

[HitchSlap]

That the fine tuning is meaningless. They understand that these values are not just from chance there are too many and too many are independent of the others.

Of course it is chance, there's zero evidence to the contrary. Arguments from incredulity demonstrate a lack of comprehension.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope.

Appearance of design = support of design in your mind.

So:

No objective verifiable evidence of a God = support for there not being a God.

No denial necessary, because no objective evidence exists, that points to a God.

Appearance of design = support of design
The evidence for the appearance of design are the values that have to be almost exactly the way they are for life to exist and that type of universe is exceedingly rare if not almost impossible without the possibility of an exceedingly great number of universes available to give rise to this universe. IF that is shown, it then must be shown how the meta-laws required were possible as well.
This evidence is objective in that it is scientifically determined and agreed upon by a consensus of scientists.
Appearance of design can be due to design which supports the notion of design. The notion of design supports the notion of God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Appearance of design = support of design

No more so than appearance of rainbows = support for leprechauns.

Afterall, if leprechauns really do make rainbows, then rainbows are support for leprechauns. That is your argument in a nutshell.

The evidence for the appearance of design are the values that have to be almost exactly the way they are for life to exist and that type of universe is exceedingly rare if not almost impossible without the possibility of an exceedingly great number of universes available to give rise to this universe. IF that is shown, it then must be shown how the meta-laws required were possible as well.

But you don't have to show that the universe was designed? You just claim it, and refuse to provide evidence?

 

[Davian]

Don't expect me to.

I know. So, here is the question you got stumped on in that thread, from May of 2011:

Q: You perceive [the constants that are constant] to be tuned, just like people see clouds in the shape of bunnies. We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no?

You cannot honestly answer "yes", as you admit we do not have access to other universes to see if they can be different.

If you answer "no", you are admitting that all you have is the perception of "design" - like seeing bunnies in clouds. You have no evidence of tuning.

Provide the quotes where the scientists claim it is all their imagination and seeing bunnies.

I never claimed that they used the word "bunnies", but they do refer to the anthropic principle, which is the same thing.

My position is a well substantiated one that the consensus of scientists agree upon.

<looks for this alleged substantiation - sees none>

 

[Oncedeceived]

In order to be support, design would need to be testable and falsifiable which it isn't. What you have is a dogmatic religious belief that is impervious to evidence and reason.

As life forms that create and design we recognize the appearance of design. We can know what constitutes the presence of design.

You deny what scientists are claiming due to your dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist. You ignore what even atheist scientists claim about the fine tuning. That is evident in that you only believe what fits within your own worldview. That is pretty normal actually. The difference between you and I is that I see the evidence on its own and then give my conclusions (support for design) as the subjective part of the claim.

If you were true to your own worldview you would not deny the evidence but you would make your own conclusions as to whether or not you felt that the appearance of design was from actual design or not. Your worldview lends to that conclusion.

Fine tuning implies a tuner. No tuner, no tuning. Can you name the outcome of any other random or chance process that is described as being fine tuned? Do we describe the outcome of a lottery as being fine tuned for the winner?

Fine tuning was not a term that I employed. It is the term that the scientists (non-religious ones too) labeled the phenomena to describe their findings.

Wouldn't this also be true for a designer?

Why would it?

Where did the universe that produced the designer come from?

God is outside the natural world. He is not subject to the laws of cause and effect.

Using your posts as an example, my answer is "Because". That seems to be the kind of vague, non-answer that you prefer.

Prove that I have ever said "because" for an answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No more so than appearance of rainbows = support for leprechauns.

Afterall, if leprechauns really do make rainbows, then rainbows are support for leprechauns. That is your argument in a nutshell.

Oh no, you are left with only mockery now? When all else fails I guess.

But you don't have to show that the universe was designed? You just claim it, and refuse to provide evidence?

I've not claimed there is evidence that the universe is designed. Stop twisting.

 

[Davian]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Originally Posted by Davian

<looks for substantiation of that comment - as usual, sees none>
​

Have done so.
​

I have provided multiple links about the fine tuning of the universe.

The perceived fine tuning, to be clear.

I have provided numerous names of scientists that agree that the universe is fine tuned in just the right way for life to exist.

...and admit that it could simply look that way (the anthropic principle).

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

I read it. Explain why you feel this means that the universe is not fine tuned for life.
​

That is going through the issues that were possible that could have prevented life from occurring.

So much for a universe tuned for life. Beyond a tiny bit of "life" that clings to the surface of this planet, what else have we found?

 

[HitchSlap]

I've not claimed there is evidence that the universe is designed. Stop twisting.

You wait seventy-six pages to admit this?!

 

[Loudmouth]

As life forms that create and design we recognize the appearance of design.

We also recognize pareidolia:

"a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records when played in reverse."
Pareidolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine tuning is no different.

We can know what constitutes the presence of design.

Obviously not, since humans have been mistaken as to what is designed and not designed in many instances. The Face on Mars is a good example. There were many people who were very serious about that face being the result of designers.

You deny what scientists are claiming due to your dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist.

I don't deny it at all:

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

I agree with Davies.

You ignore what even atheist scientists claim about the fine tuning.

Can you please show me an atheist who claims that the universe was tuned by a deity?

If you were true to your own worldview you would not deny the evidence . . .

I am not denying the evidence. I am rejecting the claim of fine tuning.

Fine tuning was not a term that I employed. It is the term that the scientists (non-religious ones too) labeled the phenomena to describe their findings.

Just as they used the term "Face" to describe the feature on Mars. Doesn't make it a real face, nor does it indicate that it is a real face.

Why would it?

Why wouldn't it?

God is outside the natural world. He is not subject to the laws of cause and effect.

Then why would the meta-laws have to be subject to those same things?

Prove that I have ever said "because" for an answer.

Why?

 

[Davian]

Scientists say that they know what the consequences would be if they were tuned differently and they do know that they could be different.

Do these scientists have access to other universes? No? Then they do not know that they might have been different.

Ok. Your point?

It would appear that you often conflate "fine tuning therefore life" with "the constants we observe are constant therefore life".

The first is an unevidenced, unfalsifiable claim. The second is a tautology.

Scientists continue to look for explanations for the fine tuning problem and feel that it is a valid question in Science. You have the right to deny that if you wish.

You admitted a few posts ago that "design" (fine tuning) was unfalsifiable. It can still be a question in science, but it is of no significance without evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh no, you are left with only mockery now? When all else fails I guess.

I notice that you can't show how your argument is any different than the one I have presented.

I've not claimed there is evidence that the universe is designed.

You make that claim everytime you say that the appearance of design supports actual design. That is what the word "support" means.