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.
Well then you would be wrong because there have been PhD level physicists that have come to the conclusion that the appearance of design supports design and have become theists due to it. There are also PhD level physicists that were theists and have said that the fine tuning confirmed that the universe was created.
But, given that appearance of design doesn't equate to design, how would you expect someone to supply evidence that a universe that appeared designed, wasn't?
That is not my problem because I am not claiming the evidence confirms actual design.
Nope. Hasn't been disproven either. Might be solved in the future though, as in, our lifetimes. When equipment gets better
So do you think Davies is being subjective in his view that life came from Mars?
No, I don't. Do you know the percentage of those who agree or disagree have had their position proven?Sure, there are some who agree with ID, why wouldn't there be, with thousands to choose from?
Any idea what the percentage of those who agree with ID, as compared to those who do not?
How would one disprove that there was ever life on Mars?
No, I don't. Do you know the percentage of those who agree or disagree have had their position proven?
-_- then why do you keep bringing it up as if it does?
Have you read the thread? Appearance of design is supportive of design. That is my claim. If the universe was designed it would have the appearance of design. It is a reasonable conclusion in the theistic worldview. It has explanatory power in that if the universe appears designed it is supportive of a Designer.
Proven? When is anything ever proven beyond a doubt in science?
You are again conflating, believing something is true without verifiable evidence to show it is true, with, not believing something is true without verifiable evidence.
Clearly, there is no difference in level of subjectivity in those two to you, but, there is to me.
you just said that you aren't saying the evidence supports design, and then you are claiming that appearance of design supports design. You are claiming that appearance is EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN. Therefore, you are claiming that evidence supports design, just not anything people view as being actual evidence for anything
I stand corrected...have either had their beliefs confirmed by evidence?
No, the evidence stands on its own. The conclusions drawn are based on the personal worldview of the person making determinations of that evidence. One set of physicists that believe appearance supports design know the evidence just as the ones that don't believe that the appearance of design think it is actual design. Both believe what they believe due to the same evidence.
That is because your subjective opinion is with those who agree with you, so those who don't are considered by you to have a higher level of subjectivity but there is no such thing. There are conclusions that are based on different levels of evidence but in this case the evidence is the same.
You do know don't you that there is evidence that can either support or falsify a certain hypothesis. To support a hypothesis is to say that it is a valid conclusion from the evidence. It does not confirm the hypothesis. There is evidence for the possible existence of design in the universe. It is not evidence for actual design although it can support that conclusion.
Can you tell us about this "set" of physicists who believe appearance supports design, vs the number of physicists who do not agree with ID?
It is my opinion, that a person who does not believe something to be true, without verifiable evidence, is much more objective, than the person who chooses to believe something to be true, without verifiable evidence to show it is true.
Just my take, maybe others on this board disagree with me.
The evidence on fine tuning is the same for everyone. It is the conclusion that once subjectively comes to from that evidence rests on the persons worldview.
Some evidence can point directly in one direction, other evidence can point in a multitude of directions.
Let's just assume for a moment the universe is designed, even though we have no verifiable evidence this is the case. It is then possible, this design was initiated by intelligent life elsewhere, or possibly any number of Gods, with all sorts of different traits.
You can not produce evidence, to rule out other intelligent creators, besides the God you believe in.
Which means it is valueless in a debate
The evidence on fine tuning is the same for everyone. It is the conclusion that once subjectively comes to from that evidence rests on the persons worldview.
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?