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.
The problem here is to give an operational definition of design in order to determine if something is designed or not. Just saying that something appears to someone as being designed is not enough. You have to say what measurable characteristics lead you to believe that something looks like it was designed.
Dizredux
Well, if you took it a step further and actually listened to the people you quote, when they say they don't see evidence of ID, nor do they believe in ID, I would think, you are taking it beyond a rational and reasoned conclusion.
You see, you listen to them to the point of them stating; appearance, but then you disregard what these scientists say when they take it a step further, so I would call that pure faith.
I completely understand you have a strong need to convince yourself, you are being logical and reasoned in your conclusion. But if you were relying on factual logic and reason, you wouldn't need to rely on faith.
You still don't get it, do you?
Randomly set values for constants would produce fine tuning since the resulting universe would necessarily require those constants.
A different universe would exist, and it would be just as fine tuned as this one since the resulting universe would be entirely dependent on those constants being exactly what they are.
Those universes could produce something different than what we see in this universe which means that those other universes would be just as finely tuned for their unique features as this one is.
I have repeatedly stated that the scientists that I quote are not creationists nor proponents of ID. I have not misrepresented them. I just have one more piece of evidence that they don't have...God. So their conclusions are based on their experiences and mine are based on mine.
Like I said, you can call it faith if it eases your mind. I have no problem with you feeling more comfort with someone having faith rather than them claiming that they have some knowledge that you lack. I can understand that.
I have no need to convince myself of anything. I already have the knowledge that God exists and anything after that is just exploring the world for what it has to offer.
"Here's why. If a law is a truly exact mathematical relationship, it requires infinite information to specify it. In my opinion, however, no law can apply to a level of precision finer than all the information in the universe can express. Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness.
Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--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
Which is just as I said, he is no creationist nor ID proponent.
Obviously you have not read anything from current data and what the scientists are claiming. They do not agree with you that just any universe would or could support intelligent life.
IMO, I believe you have a very strong desire, to convince yourself of something, but that is just what I observe, from the contents of your posts.
I didn't say you misrepresented these scientists position who state they do not go along with ID, I stated your claim of using; reason and logic to come to your conclusion, disregards the same scientists reason and logic, you refer to when you claim appearance of design is all you need, to make a logical and reasoned conclusion and thus, requires faith.
IMO, I believe you have a very strong desire, to convince yourself of something, but that is just what I observe, from the contents of your posts.
I didn't say you misrepresented these scientists position who state they do not go along with ID, I stated your claim of using; reason and logic to come to your conclusion, disregards the same scientists reason and logic, you refer to when you claim appearance of design is all you need, to make a logical and reasoned conclusion and thus, requires faith.[/quote}
Scientists collect data and that data presents an appearance of design, that stands alone because it is mathematical and tested. What they and I conclude from that is based subjectively on our worldviews. Just like yours.
Please demonstrate, how these scientists, are using their world view and subjectivity in concluding, there is no objective evidence of ID.
"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies
This is a subjective conclusion that Paul Davies holds.
Like I said, he is not a creationist nor a ID proponent.
Scientists collect data and that data presents an appearance of design, that stands alone because it is mathematical and tested.
What they and I conclude from that is based subjectively on our worldviews. Just like yours.
Please demonstrate, how these scientists, are using their world view and subjectivity in concluding, there is no objective evidence of ID.
They are not claiming there is no evidence of ID. They are looking at the appearance of design and subjectively concluding that they don't believe it is actual. There is no evidence to say that actual design is not present.
The appearance of design is as subjective as it gets.
What they conclude is that there is no evidence for actual design, which is a very objective conclusion.
They are not claiming there is no evidence of ID. They are looking at the appearance of design and subjectively concluding that they don't believe it is actual. There is no evidence to say that actual design is not present.
These scientists are not being objective then, when they acknowledge there is no falsifiable test for ID and choose to not believe in ID without verifiable evidence?
They are not claiming there is no evidence of ID.
They are looking at the appearance of design and subjectively concluding that they don't believe it is actual. There is no evidence to say that actual design is not present.
What makes it subjective?
He is a top scientist, is he not? That meets your requirements for accurate conclusions, does it not?
Then you are disagreeing the top scientists in the field.
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?