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.
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.
Well, Krauss certainly made himself a laughingstock with his 'nothing' debacle. Apparently his fortitude isn't quite up to debating his silly (to put it mildly) faith based views.
There seems to be a real problem with the word appearance and what that means in regard to the fine tuning problem in astrophysics. There are only a few astrophysicists that deny fine tuning and that the values of the universe are those required for life on earth.
It is not like a few scientists "see" design where others do not.
It comes down to the data, what that data means in regard to what we know about the Laws of Physics, the requirements for life to exist and how finely those values are tuned to fit those requirements.
Perhaps you should read up on what the astrophysicists as a whole are claiming. This is no leap of assumption but that based on what they are claiming.
Reality appears real, which supports that reality is really a simulation from the Matrix.
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.
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?
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...
Originally Posted by Lawrence KraussWhy 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
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.
No. He means nothing. And he explains very well what he means by that.
This is the dishonest hypocracy you ALWAYS get from the creationists or the apologists! You NEVER hear ANY of them complaining, when I point to an empty box and say "Look. It's empty. There is nothing in it."
You NEVER hear anybody complain: "Ohhhh, that's not true! There is air in it! And space! And time!"
So, on a certain level, even the apologists understand that words (like "nothing") have different meaning depending on how they are used... and YET, when Krauss uses it in a certain way, and even EXPLAINS SPECIFICLY WHAT HE MEANS... it suddenly becomes a problem! Why? Because he disagrees with their favorit fable!
It's dishonest, and it's childish.
Sure, yeah, why not!
Heck, if you can't deal with the real models, just make [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] up, and then tear down the strawmen, right?
Hey, did you know:
In the theists world, there are pink hippos living on Jupiter! They are the descendants of the galactic space-bunny, who farted the universe into existence! Look how silly the theists are, believing in that nonsense!
...
Sure, this objection wouldn't be honest at all, but who cares about honesty, when you try to attack a position you don't like, right?
Well, I'm pretty sure, that Krauss' careere and reputation can survive it when he's a "laughing stock" among creationists and appologetics.
Actually... if I were him, I'd take this as a compliment
My point has been that the appearance of design support the possibility of design and has been.
Psalm 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.A point that remains unsubstantiated. You have no data to support the possibility that the universe was designed, as you have no access to other universes.
Psalm 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psalm 143:5 I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.
Sounds designed to me.
I think the main point is, if the universe is set up for life naturally, why is there only life on planet earth? Shouldn't there be abundant life in all the different stages, on other planets?
I think the main point is, if the universe is set up for life naturally, why is there only life on planet earth? Shouldn't there be abundant life in all the different stages, on other planets?
This is addressed in other posts.
He isn't getting great reviews from his peers and I think that is where this is coming from not creationists.
He is more concerned with trying to get God out of the equation to think reasonably if you ask me.
Realty is that the universe is considered fine tuned for life.
You do realize that the fine tuning values of the constants and the consequences of changing them are tested with models in this universe?
Now you are showing your ignorance for astrophysics. That is exactly why the lottery fallacy is faulty, it isn't like the universe could just pop up with the values that we have that permit life without having the same meta-laws for the multiverse system it arises from.
No my options were either natural or design. There could be possibilities that could factor in. It seems I am more open for possibilities as well as realty than you and those who deny what by authority is claimed.
No offense, but it was like hammering into concrete.
You never did grasp the concept.
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?