Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[bhsmte]

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.

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?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is rough being a physicist in general.

Ok.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is not my problem because I am not claiming the evidence confirms actual design.

-_- then why do you keep bringing it up as if it does?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. Hasn't been disproven either. Might be solved in the future though, as in, our lifetimes. When equipment gets better

How would one disprove that there was ever life on Mars?

 

[bhsmte]

So do you think Davies is being subjective in his view that life came from Mars?

As I have already stated, if someone believes something to be true without verifiable evidence to show it is true, they are being subjective.

If someone declines to believe something is true, without verifiable evidence to support it is true, they are being more objective.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

No, I don't. Do you know the percentage of those who agree or disagree have had their position proven?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How would one disprove that there was ever life on Mars?

There are various possibilities, proving that the fossils found weren't of once living material would be a start

 

[bhsmte]

No, I don't. Do you know the percentage of those who agree or disagree have had their position proven?

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- 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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

Proven? When is anything ever proven beyond a doubt in science?

I stand corrected...have either had their beliefs confirmed by evidence?

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.

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.

Clearly, there is no difference in level of subjectivity in those two to you, but, there is to me.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Which means it is valueless in a debate

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I have not claimed that the appearance of design in the universe if actual design would identify the Designer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which means it is valueless in a debate

The evidence supports you are wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

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 are talking about ID here.

How is it, the fact that ID has no verifiable objective evidence to support it and choosing to not believe it is true, subjective?