Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Davian]

...
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.

We do not know that the universe might have been different.

You are claiming that the the universe "appears" to be tuned, implying this makes tuning possible, which would then create the need for a tuner/multiverse/other, creating an unfalsifiable gap that cannot be addressed by science, into which to are ready to stuff your god.

You have been god-of-the-gaps all along.

 

[Davian]

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.

This is not a dichotomy. It isn't multiverse or "designer". We may simply not be able to know.

The appearance of design remains illusory until it has been demonstrated otherwise. The burden rests with you.

 

[Davian]

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

Deny your perception of the cosmological constants?

Do you deny that I see patterns resembling bunnies when I look at clouds?

 

[Davian]

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

You wait seventy-six pages to admit this?!

It may be that over the years she has forgotten what her actual point was.

 

[HitchSlap]

It may be that over the years she has forgotten what her actual point was.

It would seem so. Seventy-six pages of arguing, only for her to say, "gotcha', that's what I meant all along" is rather disappointing.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Can you leap a little farther with your assumptions?

 

[RichardParker]

Appearance of design = support of design

Not really. Evidence for design = Support for design.
The simple appearence of design is a nothing. Especially since this just seems to be a matter of opinion.
"Hey, I see design here!" Well, great! I can just knock this argument over by saying: "I don't".
Unless you can actually demonstrate design, this is simply a matter of opinion with no weight.

...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.

Woooooow, that seems to be a huge assumtion!
Heck, we don't even know yet if there are other universes, and you already make claims about how rare a certain configuration for a universe is?
Could you show the math for that, please?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The evidence is the values and their restrictions to life being permitted on earth. That is not inconclusive.

According to that reasoning, the random pond permitting frogs to survive is evidence that the pond was "fine tuned" for frogs.

Teleological fallacies are not a good way to argue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Moving the goal posts here. We are talking the appearance of design by way of the values required to permit life.

You should really stop with the teleogolical fallacy....
It was funny at first, but now it's just annoying.

Your entire argument is based on the false premise that the universe is the way it is so that we could exist.

It's like saying that it's cold at the poles so that ice would be there.

It's as backwards as it gets. We are here because the universe is the way it is, not the other way round.

Just like ice exists at the poles because it is cold there, not the other way around.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Something can appear designed and yet be naturally occuring. Likewise, something can appear absolutely random and yet be designed. How something appears to you or anyone else just at a glance tells you pretty much nothing about the depth of that item in question. Those physicists you keep citing as stating that the universe appears designed usually conclude that the universe isn't designed. The fact that their conclusion doesn't match with the surface observation should be all you need to understand why the appearance or lack of appearance of design is irrelevant in making any supported conclusions on the matter.

So stop mentioning how you think the universe appears and find some real evidence instead.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Reality appears real, which supports that reality is really a simulation from the Matrix.

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)

Not really. We probably will never be able to test it directly, but it comes down to models of reality which can be tested in this universe and which are consistent with the attributes of a multi-verse.

Kind of the same way of how we came to know about atoms and particles.

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.

That is false. And it shows your ignorance on probabilities.
Adding more alternative universes only increases the chances of our universe existing. It doesn't make it "possible". 1 chance in a billion means that statistically, 1 billion trials will result in one success story. It doesn't mean that it will be trial nr one billion that will hit. It could be the first one as well.

And you seem to continue to assume that it's either "designed" or "multi-verse". As I've suggested couple pages back, what about the possibility that a universe couldn't exist any other way? You seem to like "possibilities". Are we a little biased towards one particular "possibility"? Hmm?

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.

So, you're right - even if you're wrong, ha?
You continue to use those words "fine tuning" and you consistently 'forget' that those words are loaded like a truck.

The very idea of "fine tuning" has so many unjustified premises, it's not even funny. It implies intent, agency, purpose, planning, an agent,... Where is your justification for all these premises?

And to paraphrase Krauss here...

Why do you find it so surprising that we find ourselves living in a universe in which we can live?

What would be surprising, is if we would find ouselves in a universe in which we couldn'tlive. In fact, that would be a reasonable premise for a god argument. /trollface

 

[Davian]

by Lawrence Krauss
Why do you find it so surprising that we find ourselves living in a universe in which we can live?

What would be surprising, is if we would find ourselves in a universe in which we couldn't live. In fact, that would be a reasonable premise for a god argument.

I tried that one on Once a few years ago. I don't think she got it. It was too painful to explain it to her, so I dropped it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We do not know that the universe might have been different.

That does nothing to eliminate the fine tuning. IF it couldn't have been different it just means that the fine tuning we see was indeed necessary because it couldn't have been any other way.

You are claiming that the the universe "appears" to be tuned, implying this makes tuning possible, which would then create the need for a tuner/multiverse/other, creating an unfalsifiable gap that cannot be addressed by science, into which to are ready to stuff your god.

You have been god-of-the-gaps all along.

There is no gap, this argument is based on what science does know.

 

[justlookinla]

It's great when Krauss is referenced. The 'nothing is something' guy. Or is it 'something is nothing'?

Thus the faith based gospel of atheistic creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

That does nothing to eliminate the fine tuning. IF it couldn't have been different it just means that the fine tuning we see was indeed necessary because it couldn't have been any other way.

If it couldn't have been any other way, then no one needs to tune it.

There is no gap, this argument is based on what science does know.

Science does not know that a designer set the constants in our universe.

 

[RichardParker]

That does nothing to eliminate the fine tuning. IF it couldn't have been different it just means that the fine tuning we see was indeed necessary because it couldn't have been any other way.

Wait, WHAT?

If it couldn't have been any different, this means EXACTLY what it says: If couldn't have been any different... therefore negating the encessity of a fine-tuner!
You only need to "tune" something if it actually has any options of being out-of-tune! If it doesn't any "tuning" is absolutly useless!

You just want to make your argument unfalsifiable

"If the universe could have been all these millions of different ways, that means that somebody must have tuned it just right! And if couldn't have been any other way, than this means, that there must have been somebody who made it exactly that way!"

You know what's the thing with unfalsifiable models?
If there is no way of proving them wrong, you don't have any way of proving it right either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is not a dichotomy. It isn't multiverse or "designer". We may simply not be able to know.

The appearance of design remains illusory until it has been demonstrated otherwise. The burden rests with you.

You are correct it might not be a multiverse or designer. It could be naturalistic or designer however.

The appearance of design resulting from the fine tuning of the universe has two possible causes and those two are naturalistic or design. The appearance of design must be explained by either of these explanations. We can ask what is the more reasonable cause for something to appear designed? It would seem much more reasonable for the cause of an appearance of design to be design. It supports more cohesively the possibility of design than for a naturalistic possibility when there is no goal or purpose behind a naturalistic universe.

 

[RichardParker]

It's great when Krauss is referenced. The 'nothing is something' guy. Or is it 'something is nothing'?

Actually no. You should maybe listen to him sometimes.
He is not the "nothing is something" guy, he is the:
"If I say nothing, I mean with that X, Y and Z"-guy.

Which is the honest thing to do, if you use words, that can have different usages.

It's not like f.e. creationists do: Not defining their terms at all, so that they will always be able to back-paddle, and say "nonono, that's not what I've ment".

 

[bhsmte]

Actually no. You should maybe listen to him sometimes.
He is not the "nothing is something" guy, he is the:
"If I say nothing, I mean with that X, Y and Z"-guy.

Which is the honest thing to do, if you use words, that can have different usages.

It's not like f.e. creationists do: Not defining their terms at all, so that they will always be able to back-paddle, and say "nonono, that's not what I've ment".

Well, they have to cling to something, don't they?

 

[justlookinla]

Actually no. You should maybe listen to him sometimes.
He is not the "nothing is something" guy, he is the:
"If I say nothing, I mean with that X, Y and Z"-guy.

Which is the honest thing to do, if you use words, that can have different usages.

It's not like f.e. creationists do: Not defining their terms at all, so that they will always be able to back-paddle, and say "nonono, that's not what I've ment".

Right, when Krauss says "nothing" he really means "something". But in his Godless world, something is nothing. And nothing, which is something, created the universe. Thus the universe and everything in it is the product of nothing, which is something.

Atheistic creationism is a weird faith based belief system.