Fine tuning of the Universe

[Radrook]

Flew was getting very old and death is scary when it is imminent.

Anything to avoid the obvious truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything to avoid the obvious truth.

Exactly. Now you know why he changed. It is very hard to be honest when staring death in the face.

 

[Radrook]

Exactly. Now you know why he changed. It is very hard to be honest when staring death in the face.

No, I meant you using his age as a way to avoid the obvious truth that he indeed had legitimate, compelling reasons to accept the ID concept.

 

[KCfromNC]

Anything to avoid the obvious truth.

The obvious truth being that Christianity is wrong and deism is correct. That's what your supposed expert on the correct view of religion claimed. Why haven't you converted yet? Looks like even you don't believe that his conversion really means that much about which particular view of god is correct if you're not willing to do that. Which begs the question of why you're wasting our time with it in a science forum.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From a theological Christian viewpoint the condition of the present universe, although still sufficiently fine-tuned, is nevertheless understood biblically as an inferior imperfect version from its original form and in need of replacement. That includes mankind which is presently an inferior imperfect version of the original design.

You make it sound like an inferior product from an inferior designer - that really would be depressing... fortunately, by dropping the designer and explicit design altogether, the awkward ontology and its contradictions go away, and it all makes a lot more sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I meant you using his age as a way to avoid the obvious truth that he indeed had legitimate, compelling reasons to accept the ID concept.

But there is no reason to believe that. He could not even give valid reasons for why he changed his mind. You keep forgetting that you do not have any evidence for ID. No, it is more likely that the prospect of death scared him so he needed to believe in something more. That does not support your argument in any way at all. The good news is that it does not help my side either. It is a neutral fact that is rather meaningless.

 

[Radrook]

You make it sound like an inferior product from an inferior designer - that really would be depressing... fortunately, by dropping the designer and explicit design altogether, the awkward ontology and its contradictions go away, and it all makes a lot more sense.

I am simply providing you with what the Bible says about our present universe. That it is not what it was intended to be and will be refurbished. In short, any natural flaws that you mention in order to prove a non-existent ID are inapplicable from that standpoint.

Isaiah 65:17 ESV /

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

2 Peter 3:13 ESV
But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:4 ESV
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

 

[Radrook]

But there is no reason to believe that. He could not even give valid reasons for why he changed his mind. You keep forgetting that you do not have any evidence for ID. No, it is more likely that the prospect of death scared him so he needed to believe in something more. That does not support your argument in any way at all. The good news is that it does not help my side either. It is a neutral fact that is rather meaningless.

I don't expect atheists to consider anything art all that might be presented as evidence for an ID. So your statement comes as no great revelation. As far as his offering valid scientific reasons for his change of mind, I see no reason to assume that he suddenly divested himself of all his previous education-self-lobotomized and dumbed himself down in order to accept the existence of an ID because such a procedure is totally unnecessary for the acceptance of an ID. The fact that you assume a dumbing down immediately took place is simply that you need to assume a dumbing down because you cannot fathom a smart person ever accepting the concept of an ID.

BTW
I never claimed that the individual is an expert in religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am simply providing you with what the Bible says about our present universe. That it is not what it was intended to be and will be refurbished. In short, any natural flaws that you mention in order to prove a non-existent ID are inapplicable from that standpoint.^

You mean.... from the standpoint of the religion that you insist is not related to this "scientific" ID model?

Isaiah 65:17 ESV /

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

2 Peter 3:13 ESV
But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:4 ESV
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Ow, look... bible quotes. How unsurprising!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't expect atheists to consider anything art all that might be presented as evidence for an ID.

Why not? After all, as you keep claiming, this ID model has nothing to do with religion and everything with "sound science", right?

I mean, the "D" could just be a natural alien race in a natural universe, right?

So your statement comes as no great revelation. As far as his offering valid scientific reasons for his change of mind, I see no reason to assume that he suddenly divested himself of all his previous education-self-lobotomized and dumbed himself down in order to accept the existence of an ID

Why not? It's not like we don't have any precedents of that.............
Most famous one probably that geologists with a phd from Harvard. Don't recall his name, unfortunatly.

In any case, he once said that he is the first to admit that all the evidence of reality points to a 4.6 billion year old eart and a 13.7 billion year old universe, but that he still believes that the earth is only 6000 years old "because that's what the bible says".

Or how religions are capable of poisoning rational minds...

because such a procedure is totally unnecessary for the acceptance of an ID

Really? Then why do you keep bringin atheism and bible quotes into this discussion?

The fact that you assume a dumbing down immediately took place is simply that you need to assume a dumbing down because you cannot fathom a smart person ever accepting the concept of an ID.

I don't think that Subduction Zone has any problem at all with accepting that smart / intelligent people are capable of believing all kinds of nonsense, even when they really should know better.

As I said, it's not like we don't have any precedents of such.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't expect atheists to consider anything art all that might be presented as evidence for an ID. So your statement comes as no great revelation. As far as his offering valid scientific reasons for his change of mind, I see no reason to assume that he suddenly divested himself of all his previous education-self-lobotomized and dumbed himself down in order to accept the existence of an ID because such a procedure is totally unnecessary for the acceptance of an ID. The fact that you assume a dumbing down immediately took place is simply that you need to assume a dumbing down because you cannot fathom a smart person ever accepting the concept of an ID.

BTW
I never claimed that the individual is an expert in religion.

I notice you still haven't answered my question - if you find his conversion such a convincing argument for his religious beliefs, why do you reject those beliefs?

 

[Radrook]

Because of the magnitude of fine-tuning needed for our universe to exist as it does, regardless if others exist or not.



It's more than possible, it's actually fact that our universe exists. The possibility of other universes is unknown because there's no evidence for them.



It's based on the evidence that our universe is finely tuned to an extreme magnitude.



The possibility of something can only be established if there's evidence for it - there is no evidence of other universes, but there is evidence that our universe was intended to exist based on the observation of extreme fine-tuning.

These other universes are postulated in a desperate effort to explain away the indications that our universe was fine tuned on purpose by an ID.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These other universes are postulated in a desperate effort to explain away the indications that our universe was fine tuned on purpose by an ID.

Wrong, try again. No need to explain away something that does not exist.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

These other universes are postulated in a desperate effort to explain away the indications that our universe was fine tuned on purpose by an ID.

You are the one who is claiming the present universe is not the original one. How many versions of this universe do you think we are up to so far?

I am simply providing you with what the Bible says about our present universe. That it is not what it was intended to be and will be refurbished.

First of all you claimed the universe was "fine tuned to an extreme magnitude". Then it was "sufficiently fine tuned". Your argumentation is as messy as the dog's dinner of a universe (or is it more than one?) you claim your god created.

 

[KCfromNC]

I notice you still haven't answered my question - if you find his conversion such a convincing argument for his religious beliefs, why do you reject those beliefs?

Funny how this question keeps getting ignored. I wonder why.

 

[Radrook]

You mean.... from the standpoint of the religion that you insist is not related to this "scientific" ID model?


Ow, look... bible quotes. How unsurprising!

I have never denied that I believe in the creator as described biblically. What I have proposed is to discuss the matter of an ID from a purely non-religious perspective. In short, it isn't necessary to bring in religion when discussing the reason for belief in an ID. Please also keep in mind that I did not employ the belief in God per se as the reason for belief in an ID. That is an unwarranted conclusion that you are reaching.

 

[Speedwell]

I have never denied that I believe in the creator as described biblically. What I have proposed is to discuss the matter of an ID from a purely non-religious perspective. In short, it isn't necessary to bring in religion when discussing the reason for belief in an ID. Please also keep in mind that I did not employ the belief in God per se as the reason for belief in an ID. That is an unwarranted conclusion that you are reaching.

OK, if you say so. But I hope you understand why we have had a hard time swallowing it. You promote ID just like the Discovery Institute, link to their articles and videos. Behind the ID facade we find biblical creationism, just like the Discovery Institute. You know, if it walks like a duck...

 

[Radrook]

OK, if you say so. But I hope you understand why we have had a hard time swallowing it. You promote ID just like the Discovery Institute, link to their articles and videos. Behind the ID facade we find biblical creationism, just like the Discovery Institute. You know, if it walks like a duck...

The ID position is that there is intelligence evident in nature. Any discussion of the ID can be restricted to that and that alone. I strive to keep it within those parameters but find myself being assailed by religious comments and accusations that eventually might make me respond religiously. But I would prefer to leave religion out of the discussion because it inevitably diverts the subject into irrelevant issues such as the ID's personality, its origin, its intentions etcetera. All iof which are totally irrelevant to the issue of whether mind is revealed in nature or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have never denied that I believe in the creator as described biblically. What I have proposed is to discuss the matter of an ID from a purely non-religious perspective. In short, it isn't necessary to bring in religion when discussing the reason for belief in an ID. Please also keep in mind that I did not employ the belief in God per se as the reason for belief in an ID. That is an unwarranted conclusion that you are reaching.

As I have shown time and again, it is not.

It's you who keeps bringing religion into it. It's you who keeps throwing around accusations that we only reject ID because of some "anti-religious" agenda.

It's also you who has completely and utterly failed to present us with the supposed scientific framework, research and hypothesis that comes with scientific models, which you claim ID is.

Next to that, all your "arguments" read like copy-paste from discovery institute nonsense, who invented this model. You know.... those people who were called out for their creationism in disguise by a conservative christian judge during the Dover trial.

The same trial where christian biologists testified under oath that there is nothing scientific about ID.

The same trial where Behe had to admit under oath that if ID is valid science, then so is astrology. You know... horoscopes.

I have every reason to conclude what I'm concluding.
You haven't given me a single reason to conclude otherwise.

 

[durangodawood]

ID is just a crutch for injured faith.