Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[selfinflikted]

Atheistic creationism is a weird faith based belief system.

Beyond the fact that this statement is littered with false ideas, how is it any weirder than a belief system in which a god sacrifices himself to himself to save us all from himself?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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".

Most of us avoid starting up a conversation with the old guy walking around on the street talking to himself. Just a recommendation...you can do as you wish.

 

[justlookinla]

Beyond the fact that this statement is littered with false ideas, how is it any weirder than a belief system in which a god sacrifices himself to himself to save us all from himself?

Depends on what your faith based belief system is, doesn't it?

 

[RichardParker]

Right, when Krauss says "nothing" he really means "something".

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.

Thus the universe and everything in it is the product of nothing, which is something.

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?

 

[Davian]

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.

Or the appearance of design is simply perception.

Your first sentence is faulty. I fixed it for you:

"The appearance of design resulting from the [perception of] fine tuning of the universe..."

Circular reasoning. Stop that.

 

[RichardParker]

Depends on what your faith based belief system is, doesn't it?

No, actually the idea that a god has to sacrifice himself to himself, so that he can forgive his creation... Well, that's pretty much insane, no matter what else you believe.

 

[RichardParker]

The appearance of design...

This is already an error.
Something APPEARES designed.
Well... ok...
To you, I assume. Perseption, and judging how something APPEARS is a very, very subjective thing.
You're claim that the universe appears designed... well, it's very easily countered by me just saying "No. To me it doesn't appear designed at all".

Unless you have specific parameters by which you measure "appeared design", this argument falls on the first hurdle, since it's just based on your personal judgment of how the universe looks to you.

 

[justlookinla]

No. He means nothing. And he explains very well what he means by that.

Right. Nothing means something. Only in the world of Krauss' atheistic creationism.

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.

Krauss has egg on his face which is the result of his wild imaginations...his own fault in other words. Of course there will be the Godless gullible who will embrace the brand of atheistic creationism he preaches, but not many. As the book reviewer of the New York Times put it.....

"But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise."​

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[RichardParker]

@justlookinla

Yeah, yeah, whatever you say.
You know what: Take Krauss' argument. Take the word "nothing" and replace it with "Suggibuluta" or any other gibberish...
Ohhhhhhhhh!!!! Looooooooooook!!!!!
Suddenly Krauss' argument points to a god!!!!!
...
...
Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
Because the word he uses to describe doesn't make a shred of difference to the concept he explains!
Ok, so he wasn't talking about "nothing" (because you only use nothing in one way, right? Or are you a hypocrit who sometimes also uses different meanings for that word? I hope not, you're making baby Jebus cry otherwise), he was talking about Suggibuluta. It's the same concept he described before using the term "nothing", but he just names it differently.
It changes literally NOTHING about his argument.
Because all you are doing here is playing semantics.

I guess the last resort for apologists, who don't have any place anymore to hide their god in.

 

[justlookinla]

@justlookinla

Yeah, yeah, whatever you say.
You know what: Take Krauss' argument. Take the word "nothing" and replace it with "Suggibuluta" or any other gibberish...
Ohhhhhhhhh!!!! Looooooooooook!!!!!
Suddenly Krauss' argument points to a god!!!!!
...
...
Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
Because the word he uses to describe doesn't make a shred of difference to the concept he explains!
Ok, so he wasn't talking about "nothing" (because you only use nothing in one way, right? Or are you a hypocrit who sometimes also uses different meanings for that word? I hope not, you're making baby Jebus cry otherwise), he was talking about Suggibuluta. It's the same concept he described before using the term "nothing", but he just names it differently.
It changes literally NOTHING about his argument.
Because all you are doing here is playing semantics.

I guess the last resort for apologists, who don't have any place anymore to hide their god in.

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.

Neil deGrasse Tyson blows it big time « Why Evolution Is True

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, actually the idea that a god has to sacrifice himself to himself, so that he can forgive his creation... Well, that's pretty much insane, no matter what else you believe.

To be fair, that is far from the most crazy thing people believe.

 

[Davian]

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.

Or, your perception of design is simply a case of apophenia, seeing that no one has demonstrated that there is a "goal" or "purpose" to this universe.

Apophenia: the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

Apophenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oncedeceived]

Or, your perception of design is simply a case of apophenia, seeing that no one has demonstrated that there is a "goal" or "purpose" to this universe.

Apophenia: the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

Apophenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no perception of design in accordance with the universe. I can't see the values that permit life to evolve. Your misinformed idea of what the fine tuning observation really is seems to be your biggest problem.

 

[Davian]

I have no perception of design in accordance with the universe. I can't see the values that permit life to evolve.

So the universe does not appear to be designed to you?

Your misinformed idea of what the fine tuning observation really is seems to be your biggest problem.

What tuning? Your perception of tuning? Your presumption of tuning?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

My point has been that the appearance of design support the possibility of design and has been.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you leap a little farther with your assumptions?

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.

 

[bhsmte]

My point has been that the appearance of design support the possibility of design and has been.

Ok, then using simple logic you would agree:

The appearance of no objective verifiable evidence to show a God exists, supports that no God exists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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. Those who do not agree about the fine tuning in the scientific arena have had their arguments shot down by those who do. 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. It is not an opinion based on the look of something, an opinion based on patterns that some make out to be something they are not. Your misunderstanding of the issue is evident.

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?

You can read about it Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis | Simons Foundation

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

If the universe was random and the values that it has happened prior to life existing but was nevertheless necessary for life to exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

No, my argument is based on the scientific data that shows that there are many values in the universe that must be the way they are for life to exist on earth.

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

No, it is not like that at all. It is saying that there are values that are measured and those measurements are very precise and required to be that way for life to exist on earth. IT would be more like, the temperature at the north pole is below 32 degrees, there is ice at the north, ice appears when the temperature drops below 32degrees so the appearance of ice necessitates temperatures below 32 degrees.

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

It is the same thing except that the universe having other values would not permit life to exist at all.