Correlation must also include causation. What is the causation and evidence for supporting it?
Upvote
0
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.
Correlation must also include causation. What is the causation and evidence for supporting it?IF something has the appearance of design (it looks like someone designed it)the most plausible explanation is that it is designed.
Well, when something was "taken seriously" is going to be a subjective matter.The point is that the math might have supported that option but not until fine tuning was it taken seriously.
False.Funny, last time I asked you said that evidence was an answer to a question I never asked.
Right.Nope. I'd bother tracking it down but every time I've done so in the past you've ignore those posts. Not going to waste my time on made up accusations you don't have the courage to back up.
The scientists have done this and you ignore it. Smolin and Penrose were presented for you but you ignore it.Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.
IF something has the appearance of design (it looks like someone designed it)the most plausible explanation is that it is designed.
Well we know that Carr has said:Well, when something was "taken seriously" is going to be a subjective matter.
We recognize design by how we as intelligent beings design
it is obvious that if something has the appearance of someone designing that to claim it is just an illusion without any evidence that would support that view is wishful thinking.
False.
You asked: Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.
I gave you this:
Penrose is a mathematician and Physicist and if his calculations were incorrect there would be peer reviewed corrections and there are not.
I gave you Lee Smolin's answer to improbability as well. Here is something that talks about that:
There are a number of parameters in theoretical physics which are only known empirically: there is no theoretical basis for them having the values that they do. Among these are the rest-masses of the various wave-particles and the ratios of the strengths of the four fundamental forces. All of these parameters could have different values, according to theory, but if they did then life in our Universe would be impossible. The fact that they all do have values that allow life is called the problem of cosmic coincidences, also known as the fine-tuning problem. Each of these actual values is quite improbable, and the totality of them together vastly more so: Lee Smolin has calculated that the probability of this is about one chance in 10 ; and 1 229 he lists four proposed explanations of this extraordinarily improbable fact.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4562.pdf
Right.
The scientists have done this and you ignore it. Smolin and Penrose were presented for you but you ignore it.
1. That paper was not written by SmolinFalse.
You asked: Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.
I gave you this:
Penrose is a mathematician and Physicist and if his calculations were incorrect there would be peer reviewed corrections and there are not.
I gave you Lee Smolin's answer to improbability as well. Here is something that talks about that:
There are a number of parameters in theoretical physics which are only known empirically: there is no theoretical basis for them having the values that they do. Among these are the rest-masses of the various wave-particles and the ratios of the strengths of the four fundamental forces. All of these parameters could have different values, according to theory, but if they did then life in our Universe would be impossible. The fact that they all do have values that allow life is called the problem of cosmic coincidences, also known as the fine-tuning problem. Each of these actual values is quite improbable, and the totality of them together vastly more so: Lee Smolin has calculated that the probability of this is about one chance in 10 ; and 1 229 he lists four proposed explanations of this extraordinarily improbable fact.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4562.pdf
Right.
Well you are wrong about that. On the internet, I can only find one excerpt from an article written by the man himself. To read the whole thing you have to be a subscriber to New Scientist. However, there is no shortage of people on the internet alluding to his opposition to the multiverse idea.3. Unless I'm mistaken, Smolin argues for a multiverse
1. The calculations were taken from Smolin's book.1. That paper was not written by Smolin
2. That paper does not contain any math
3. Unless I'm mistaken, Smolin argues for a multiverse
Actually I have quite a few articles written by Smolin if you want them.Well you are wrong about that. On the internet, I can only find one excerpt from an article written by the man himself. To read the whole thing you have to be a subscriber to New Scientist. However, there is no shortage of people on the internet alluding to his opposition to the multiverse idea.
I put the post up with the question I was answering.Funny how last time you were pressed on this you eventually came clean and admitted that these were not an answer to my question but to a totally different one. Now in this thread you're pretending I'm ignoring this as an answer. A little consistency would be nice.
What?Great, we're back to pretending that numbers which differ by 100+ orders of magnitude are an accurate representation of the scientific consensus answer. That sure clears things up.
What would characterize divine non-design?Says who?
Apart from that, we don´t know what "design" looks like. We - at best - have some clue what human design looks like - not what design in general or supernatural/divine design looks like.
As soon as you have some workable criteria to distinguish divine design from devine non-design we can start looking into this argument. Until then, not so much.
As I said: that´s the question you would have to answer in order for your argument to even have a leg to stand on. If you don´t have reliable and workable criteria for the distinction "designed by God" vs "not designed by God" you, well, can´t make that distinction.What would characterize divine non-design?
1. The book was not linked1. The calculations were taken from Smolin's book.
2. The Book contains the math.
3. Smolin has a different outlook from the usual multiverse. Which is absolutely irrelevant to the point being made.
1. The calculations were taken from Smolin's book.
2. The Book contains the math.
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?