Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[Oncedeceived]

You could have fooled me, judging by your posts.

Davies does not believe in ID, and you do.

Which of you is being more subjective in your conclusions?

Both.

 

[bhsmte]

Both.

That was ultimately predictable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you claiming that most of the top scientists in the /physics/cosmology arena are not claiming that the universe appears designed?

They are claiming that there is no evidence that it is designed, contrary to your claims.

 

[PsychoSarah]

My claim is the appearance of design as described by Scientists like Paul Davies and Fred Hoyle is that the universe has an underlying order and has the appearance of a planned or fixed nature. It would be falsifiable if indeed if the values were not necessary or so precise.

There are values which are unnecessary, and you cannot possibly claim all those values to be precise with any absolute certainty, because half the time there isn't any consensus on measurements in physics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Twisting in the wind once again. You really like to twist words and what amazes me is that others see you doing it and remain silent. You know as well as everyone else that I have said that the appearance of design is my claim. The scientists say the universe appears designed.

Appearance of design is not evidence for design, you know this, so why are you bothering to bring it up over and over?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That was ultimately predictable.

I would think so.

Davies has never claimed he had evidence that ID was prohibited.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearance of design is not evidence for design, you know this, so why are you bothering to bring it up over and over?

Because it supports design which is the point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because it supports design which is the point.

False. It is not evidence for actual design.

 

[bhsmte]

Appearance of design is not evidence for design, you know this, so why are you bothering to bring it up over and over?

Because it is all she's got.

And, stating that a conclusion not agreeing with ID, because there is no verifiable evidence to show ID, is just as subjective as concluding that appearance = an intelligent creator, requires quite a bit of self rationalization.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are values which are unnecessary, and you cannot possibly claim all those values to be precise with any absolute certainty, because half the time there isn't any consensus on measurements in physics.

If we know that the weight of a grain of sand either lighter or heavier would prohibit the universe from existing, I think that is pretty precise.

There is a consensus on the values of our universe being fine tuned giving the appearance of design.

 

[bhsmte]

I would think so.

Davies has never claimed he had evidence that ID was prohibited.

Yea, he never claimed he had evidence prohibiting aliens as the driver of ID either.

 

[Loudmouth]

If we know that the weight of a grain of sand either lighter or heavier would prohibit the universe from existing, I think that is pretty precise.

Therefore, the universe was finely tuned for the Face on Mars.

There is a consensus on the values of our universe being fine tuned giving the appearance of design.

There is a consensus that this does not support actual design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because it supports design which is the point.

Except it doesn't. It would be like saying a blank book cover is evidence that the book contains no words

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it is all she's got.

And, stating that a conclusion not agreeing with ID, because there is no verifiable evidence to show ID, is just as subjective as concluding that appearance = an intelligent creator, requires quite a bit of self rationalization.

Actually I have much much more but we have to stay within the scientific area. Regardless, one must conclude from the evidence that the universe appears designed that it is actually designed, an illusion or a physical necessity. All are lacking evidence, so when one comes to a conclusion for this data it must be a subjective opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually I have much much more but we have to stay within the scientific area. Regardless, one must conclude from the evidence that the universe appears designed that it is actually designed, an illusion or a physical necessity. All are lacking evidence, so when one comes to a conclusion for this data it must be a subjective opinion.

You lack evidence for your claims that the universe is designed. You also lack evidence that the universe was finely tuned for life, and was not fine tuned for anything else that we can find in this universe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If we know that the weight of a grain of sand either lighter or heavier would prohibit the universe from existing, I think that is pretty precise.

There is a consensus on the values of our universe being fine tuned giving the appearance of design.

Except there isn't, you acknowledge the fact that most people in the field of physics openly disagree with that sentiment.

The weight of one single grain of sand would not make a difference, perhaps the masses of the elements within the grain of sand, but potentially no. Seeing as people can survive in the International Space Station, where effectively weight is as low as we could get it, you might be exaggerating.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually I have much much more but we have to stay within the scientific area. Regardless, one must conclude from the evidence that the universe appears designed that it is actually designed, an illusion or a physical necessity. All are lacking evidence, so when one comes to a conclusion for this data it must be a subjective opinion.

Well sorry, staying in the scientific area is what is going to produce objective verifiable evidence.

If you have personal experiences or personal interpretations, that is peachy, but not verifiable. All in all, it would mean you believe what you do on faith and requires subjectivity. Which, according to you, is the same level of subjectivity as someone who chooses to not believe something is true, without verifiable evidence.

Hey, whatever works for you.

You see once, for months now, I have been trying to get you to admit, you believe in what you do based on faith. But, you seem to have a real hard time acknowledging this and want to state you have objective evidence to support your claims and everyone who disagrees with you because there is no verifiable evidence, is being subjective as well.

If you could have the honesty, to do what many other Christians on this board do and admit, they believe what they do on faith, I would never challenge that position, because it is an honest description of what the belief is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Except it doesn't. It would be like saying a blank book cover is evidence that the book contains no words

No, it isn't. The appearance of design due to the precise and necessary values of our universe has to be either by chance, (which no one believes), necessity (there is no evidence that the universe would have to be the way it is), an illusion, or design. All of these conclusions have no evidence that confirms them. The chance conclusion is not held by anyone I know of and has no support either subjectively or objectively, necessity has no support by any evidence that the universe by necessity had to be as it is and if it is an illusion it is an illusion that supports design and of course if it were designed it would appear so.

Appearance of design is more cohesive with a theist's worldview than an atheists worldview in my opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yea, he never claimed he had evidence prohibiting aliens as the driver of ID either.

Yet, he believes that life came from Mars. Imagine that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, it isn't. The appearance of design due to the precise and necessary values of our universe has to be either by chance, (which no one believes), necessity (there is no evidence that the universe would have to be the way it is), an illusion, or design. All of these conclusions have no evidence that confirms them. The chance conclusion is not held by anyone I know of and has no support either subjectively or objectively, necessity has no support by any evidence that the universe by necessity had to be as it is and if it is an illusion it is an illusion that supports design and of course if it were designed it would appear so.

Appearance of design is more cohesive with a theist's worldview than an atheists worldview in my opinion.

If you judge everything just on how it looks, your life must be rough.