Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Loudmouth]

I am not claiming design. I am claiming the appearance of design which is substantiated by astrophysicist/physicists and cosmologists.

Which is the same as the appearance of bunnies in clouds.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, therefore that makes the evidence inconclusive

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is the same as the appearance of bunnies in clouds.

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

False. They most certaintly do NOT KNOW this. They assume / think that they could be different. But they don't KNOW. Because it's essentially UNKNOWN. Why? Because we have no conclusive "theory of everything". We don't have a conclusive theory on the origins of the universe. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity. We don't know.

They base their conclusions that the values could be different because of models based on known laws of physics. We don't have a conclusive "theory of everything" that is very true, but what we have are known laws of physics and other factors that are figured into their equations. They do not see anything that prohibits the universe having different values than it does. Now there might be a time when there is a theory or something that can be shown that the universe could not be different but that is not what is being determined now.

For all we know, it might turn out that the universe we observe is the only type of universe that can actually exist.
Again: WE DON'T KNOW.

WE DO KNOW what the requirements were for life to exist on earth and if they were minutely different that life could not exist.

Having corrected your blatant misrepresentation of the scientific understanding of these "constants" and/or "parameters"...

Which is?

This is again just another variation of "if things were different, then things would be different". Again: big whoop!!

I take that from the scientists that make that claim.

Underneath your entire argument lies an unjustified assumption: that the universe was intended to be the way it is. As if it was planned beforehand that it would be the way it is.

While it is more cohesive to conclude that appearance is due to actual design the possibility of design is a valid position in regard to the scientific findings.

This is an unsupported and unjustified premise on which you are basing your entire argument here. Even the very idea of "fine tuned universe" rests upon that unjustified assumption. It's completely loaded.

That is false, while there might be a few that disagree with the consensus that fine tuning is real, there are justifiable reasons that those in agreement reach their conclusions.

It assumes that there was "something" doing the tuning.
It assumes that there was "a plan" for the universe before it existed
It assumes that the universe is the way it is because it was intended to be that way.

It grants the possibility that there was "something" doing the tuning.
It grants the possibility that there was "a plan" for the universe before it existed.
It grants the possibility that the universe is the way it is because it was intended to be that way.

You have NO justification at all for these assumptions.

But I do. I have the same justification that the scientists base their conclusions upon.

Essentially, it all comes down again to your a priori belief that the universe "was created FOR US". It's the equivalent of a frog sitting next to a random pond and saying to another frog "look at how perfect this pond is for us, surely it was put here so that we can live here".

And it comes down to your a priori belief that it wasn't. The universe came before life. We don't look at the pond (universe) except by after the fact observations. The requirements were necessary prior to our existence.

If you can't see the problem with this way of thinking, then I can't help you. Nobody can. Only you can brake this fallacious pattern of appealing to ignorance, making unjustified assumptions and engaging in teleological fallacies.

Tell that to the astrophysicists that have determined the universe is fine tuned.

Asking the question "why is the universe the way it is?" is a very valid scientific question.

Asking "why is the universe fine tuned" is an invalid question, because it is loaded. It assumes premises that are not justified.

I doubt that the scientists engaged in answering that question feel it is not justified and in fact feel very justified in doing so.

 

[bhsmte]

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

How can it be conclusive, if there is no falsifiable test for design?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Prove it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How can it be conclusive, if there is no falsifiable test for design?

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

 

[Loudmouth]

Please provide the quotes that they claim it is a product of the imagination, Bunnies in clouds.

"Rees calls this system "the multiverse", and it is an increasingly popular idea among cosmologists. Only rarely within the variegated cosmic quilt will a universe possess bio-friendly laws and spawn life. It would then be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe apparently customised for habitation; we could hardly exist in one where life is impossible. If Rees is right, the impression of design is illusory: our universe has simply hit the jackpot in a gigantic cosmic lottery."--Paul Davies
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Oncedeceived]

Prove it.

IT is YOUR claim, you prove it. Provide the quotes of scientists that claim it is like seeing bunnies in clouds.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

The appearance is created by only observing universes that have life in them. This is known as a selection bias.

 

[Loudmouth]

IT is YOUR claim, you prove it.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Rees calls this system "the multiverse", and it is an increasingly popular idea among cosmologists. Only rarely within the variegated cosmic quilt will a universe possess bio-friendly laws and spawn life. It would then be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe apparently customised for habitation; we could hardly exist in one where life is impossible. If Rees is right, the impression of design is illusory: our universe has simply hit the jackpot in a gigantic cosmic lottery."--Paul Davies
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian

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

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, if Rees is right and if he can substantiate the multiverse the impression of design might be illusory.

Rees is a physicist, is he not?

It doesn't take the fine tuning problem away.

You haven't shown there is a problem to begin with. There is only a problem if our universe is the only one, or one of relatively few. If the number of universes exceeds the probability of a life sustaining universe occuring, then there is no problem. You need to show what the probabilities are, AND the number of universes. Otherwise, you haven't shown that there is a problem.

Regardless, they are not claiming it is their imagination or bunnies in clouds,

Not in so many words, but what they claim is analogous to the appearance of bunnies in clouds. It is an illusory appearance caused by the ability of humans to create false associations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Rees is a physicist, is he not?

He is an astrophysicist.

You haven't shown there is a problem to begin with. There is only a problem if our universe is the only one, or one of relatively few. If the number of universes exceeds the probability of a life sustaining universe occuring, then there is no problem. You need to show what the probabilities are, AND the number of universes. Otherwise, you haven't shown that there is a problem.

The problem is that for our laws in this universe, the multiverse still must have meta-laws and so it only pushes the fine tuning back and doesn't eliminate it. Why in the multiverse are there the fine tuning features available for our universe in it.

It is also not a scientific explanation anymore than God is as it relies on something outside of the universe to explain it.

Not in so many words, but what they claim is analogous to the appearance of bunnies in clouds. It is an illusory appearance caused by the ability of humans to create false associations.

You are basing your interpretation on your own worldview. It is not false associations but a simple case of needing to explain the fine tuning in our universe and using the multiverse to do so and then claiming that it eliminates fine tuning which even Davies disagrees with.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that for our laws in this universe, the multiverse still must have meta-laws and so it only pushes the fine tuning back and doesn't eliminate it.

You haven't even shown that there is a problem to begin with.

Why in the multiverse are there the fine tuning features available for our universe in it.

Why would it require fine tuning to begin with?

It is also not a scientific explanation anymore than God is as it relies on something outside of the universe to explain it.

Just being outside of our universe does not make something a deity.

You are basing your interpretation on your own worldview. It is not false associations but a simple case of needing to explain the fine tuning in our universe and using the multiverse to do so and then claiming that it eliminates fine tuning which even Davies disagrees with.

You haven't even shown that fine tuning is needed.

 

[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.

You have real difficulty in backing up your claims. You claimed that astrophysicists were seeing bunnies in clouds which I remarked the above. It is your claim, you must show that astrophysicists do indeed view their conclusions as bunnies in clouds.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have real difficulty in backing up your claims. You claimed that astrophysicists were seeing bunnies in clouds which I remarked the above. It is your claim, you must show that astrophysicists do indeed view their conclusions as bunnies in clouds.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't even shown that there is a problem to begin with.

No, but many astrophysicists have. Paul Davies says:

Physicist Paul Davies, reviewing, for the Guardian, Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design (Bantam 2010), says this:

The laws of physics can explain, he says, how a universe of space, time and matter could emerge spontaneously, without the need for God. And most cosmologists agree: we don’t need a god-of-the-gaps to make the big bang go bang. It can happen as part of a natural process. A much tougher problem now looms, however. What is the source of those ingenious laws that enable a universe to pop into being from nothing?
​

And here we get into trouble, for Stephen Hawking favors the multiverse hypothesis, in which perhaps infinite universes, each with different physical constants, make different worlds, and spawn (maybe via black holes) new ones, one of which just happens to be ours. But, as Paul Davies notes, the multiverse has its own problems:

The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained – eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.
​

Paul Davies Says Stephen Hawking’s New Book Doesn’t Quite Get Rid of God Completely | Prometheus Unbound

Why would it require fine tuning to begin with?

See above.

Just being outside of our universe does not make something a deity.

Not the point.

You haven't even shown that fine tuning is needed.

Scientists have.

 

[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.

You are misrepresenting the scientists:

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

"Rees calls this system "the multiverse", and it is an increasingly popular idea among cosmologists. Only rarely within the variegated cosmic quilt will a universe possess bio-friendly laws and spawn life. It would then be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe apparently customised for habitation; we could hardly exist in one where life is impossible. If Rees is right, the impression of design is illusory: our universe has simply hit the jackpot in a gigantic cosmic lottery."--Paul Davies
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian
​

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

Like he said if Rees is correct, that is not a given and the fine tuning not an illusion if he is incorrect according to Davies.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, but many astrophysicists have. Paul Davies says:

Physicist Paul Davies, reviewing, for the Guardian, Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design (Bantam 2010), says this:

The laws of physics can explain, he says, how a universe of space, time and matter could emerge spontaneously, without the need for God. And most cosmologists agree: we don’t need a god-of-the-gaps to make the big bang go bang. It can happen as part of a natural process. A much tougher problem now looms, however. What is the source of those ingenious laws that enable a universe to pop into being from nothing?​

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?​