Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
That is not what I am saying.
The Life of the Cosmos - Lee Smolin Professor of Physics Pennsylvania State University - Google Books
This is where you can read about 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.
The probability for a past event is 1:1.
That is not what I am saying.
The Life of the Cosmos - Lee Smolin Professor of Physics Pennsylvania State University - Google Books
This is where you can read about it.
That is not what I am saying.
The Life of the Cosmos - Lee Smolin Professor of Physics Pennsylvania State University - Google Books
This is where you can read about it.
The human mind sees things that aren't there all of the time. How do you know that it isn't a false detection?
Physicists and scientists have no problem acknowledging the appearance of design, I have no problem distinguishing the appearance of design. I don't see them coming up with a definition of what they think constitutes design.
The human brain is hard-wired to seek out patterns. In the wild, it helped us to stay alert to the danger of camoplaged predators. But the instinct to discover patterns is so strong it leads us to see patterns where there is only randomness. For example, the constellations. We group stars that appear close from our vantage point into pictures, even though the stars are various distances from us and from one another without any apparent correlation.
Therefore there is a huge distinction between "distinguishing the appearance" of a design and the actual existence of a design. We can't rely on mere appearance, we need a working definition.
Regardless, we can take the appearances of design farther and calculate the exactness of that pattern with the aid of mathematics.
I'm aware of the argument, and the point remains the same. Discussing the probability of something that already happened is pointless - it's already happened.
How?
Yes, that is true. Regardless, we can take the appearances of design farther and calculate the exactness of that pattern with the aid of mathematics. We then find that fine tuning to be not an illusion but in fact, actual.
The definition is insignificant. What is important is the actual preciseness of actual measurements.
That's a book. I am asking for you to present the math.
WE calculate the measurements by using the constants of Physics.
I already said I couldn't find it online. It is in the book in the notes.
I don't see why it matters.What is you then?
Have we not had this conversation about you being so evasive of the burden of proof? Your claim, your burden.Actually it was your claim. You said that appearance of design did not necessarily mean actual design. It would seem the burden of proof rests on you. You must tell me why the appearance of design does not necessitate actual design.
Well, until you have this testable definition of "design", your claims of the universe being designed are dead in the water.It seems that since you are the one that has a problem with the distinction of design. Physicists and scientists have no problem acknowledging the appearance of design, I have no problem distinguishing the appearance of design. I don't see them coming up with a definition of what they think constitutes design.
I think that a simple definition is sometimes too simplistic, I could say that design is a plan set forth by an intelligent agent that has purpose which is directed and assisted by working elements within the system/plan that would be shown to be so precise as to eliminate the natural occurrence of such elements. It could be said in the secular worldview that design is a broad spectrum of united conditions that simultaneously work within a system that defies known naturalistic explanation requiring a theory to contain the extraordinary precise fine tuning of the universe.
Of course a definition of design is a difficult thing to narrow down, which seems reasonable when in fact, intelligent design even at the human level is so hard to define.
So how do we know that this number hasn't been just pulled from the air?I looked for the actual math for what I was referring to and did not find it. Lee Smolin did the mathematical equations for probability in his book The Life of the Cosmos, the math is in the notes but I can't find it online. But this is what it says:
".... just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. ..... The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229."
I was referring to your definition, not his. You used the word "immaterial" in yours.Actually since you do not adhere to the empirical materialistic view as you stated above you set yourself apart from that, but in reality, it is a very common view and one in which Loudmouth said he identifies with.
Yes, actually. Without access to other universes for comparison purposes, your claim becomes unfalsifiable. What I personally allow for is irrelevant in regards to the (un)falsifiability of your claim.No, actually. Without the evidence of any other universes, we are confined to the one we have. If you are to allow for other universes it then makes your stance equally unfalsifiable. It is no more reasonable to put off the reason for our fine tuning to untestable hypothesis's as you say it is for God. Regardless, when taking into consideration of what consistently flows within the reality of the universe and that which does not; the Christian worldview is consistent with the "appearance" of design whereas the naturalist has inconsistency within their worldview.
No. You have misconstrued my argument.
Davian said: Where does this "naturalistic" worldview make the presupposition that the universe was designed, as yours does?
I said: I didn't claim they did.
The naturalists do not presuppose the design of the universe and I never said they did. Also, I do presuppose design, but I do not use the failure of the opposing view as support for my claim. I am comparing one view to the other. It would be a straw man if I was falsely claiming that the naturalistic worldview claims actual design by intelligent design rather than the appearance of design that they have absolutely acknowledged. They do support the appearance of design which I have shown repeatedly by quotes they have made.
No you have not.I have shown that it is not.
Nope. See above.Nope. See above.
Is this a retraction of your claim that the universe was designed?Ok. However, if you are not inclined to share your position in the discussion it seems to be unwarranted to ask me for mine.
I asked, do you or do you not have testable criteria for your claim of the universe being designed? This answer would appear to be "no". Agreed?If we can show through testing how precise and uncommonly balanced the perimeters are for the universe, and the mathematical elegance of it, we can exemplify the intelligence behind it.
The odds of winning the Powerball are 1 in 175 million. So that means that in order to win the Powerball has to be fine tuned for just that winner, correct?
Winning the lottery is 100% possible and the odds are that someone wins. The odds are only specific for you or me.
What does preciseness have to do with determining if the universe was designed by a deity? We can precisely determine a winner in the Powerball lottery, but does that mean that they results were fine tuned so that person would win?
This is a horrible analogy and one called the lottery fallacy. Seems reasonable until you realize that the numbers of the lottery and the universe are not comparable.
Seems reasonable until you realize that the numbers of the lottery and the universe are not comparable.
It is hard to have a discussion with a book.
Why?
First off, can you show that the speed of light (or any constant) can be any different than what it was?
Also, how many universes are there?
Winning the lottery is 100% possible and the odds are that someone wins.
This is a horrible analogy and one called the lottery fallacy. Seems reasonable until you realize that the numbers of the lottery and the universe are not comparable.
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?