Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's see the math.

The Life of the Cosmos - Lee Smolin Professor of Physics Pennsylvania State University - Google Books

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

This isn't a suggested reading forum. We were hoping that you would actually discuss it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Life of the Cosmos - Lee Smolin Professor of Physics Pennsylvania State University - Google Books

That's a book. I am asking for you to present the math.

 

[lasthero]

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.

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.

 

[OllieFranz]

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

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.

The definition is insignificant. What is important is the actual preciseness of actual measurements.

 

[lasthero]

Regardless, we can take the appearances of design farther and calculate the exactness of that pattern with the aid of mathematics.

How?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I don't think you are aware of the argument. We are not calculating the said event of the universe happening. What is being discussed is the precise measurements and the probability of those being accidental or illusional.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How?

WE calculate the measurements by using the constants of Physics. Example:


Constant Value Dimension Alias Definition & Notes Universal constants used in too many categories to constrain their scope Speed of light c 2.997 924 580 e+8 m.s-1 m/s Assigned (see SI units) Permeability of vacuum μ0 12.566 370 614... e-7 kg.m.s-2.A-2 H/m | N/A2 = 4π.10-7. Assigned. Permittivity of vacuum ε0 8.854 187 817... e-12 kg-1.m-3.s4.A2 F/m = 1 / (c2 μ0). Assigned. Gravitation constant G 6.673 84[80] e-11 kg-1.m3.s-2 force = G M1M2 / r122 Planck constant h 6.626 069 57[29] e-34 kg.m2.s-1 J.s = (energy transfer quantum)/(channel frequency) Angular Planck constant 1.054 571 726[47] e-34 kg.m2.s-1 J.s = h/2π, the angular momentum quantum Charge/Quantum ratio 2.417 989 348[53] e+14 kg-1.m-2.s2.A A/J = e / h Elementary charge e 1.602 176 565[35] e-19 s.A C Quantum/Charge ratio 4.135 667 52[10] e-15 kg.m2.s-2.A-1 J/A = h / e Fine structure constant α 7.297 352 5698[24] e-3 Dimensionless = μ0 c e2 / 2h. Inverse of fine structure constant 137.035 999 074[45] Dimensionless = 1/α = 2h / (μ0 c e2). See ref.[1]. Boltzmann constant k 1.380 6488[13] e-23 kg.m2.s-2.K-1 J/K Sets thermodynamic temperature Planck mass mp 2.176 51[13] e-8 kg mp2 = (h/2&#960 c / G Planck time tp 5.391 06[32] e-44 s = (h/2&#960 / (mpc2) Planck length lp 1.616 199[97] e-35 m = ctp Planck temperature 1.416 833[85] e+32 K = mpc2 / k

 

[Loudmouth]

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 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?

The definition is insignificant. What is important is the actual preciseness of actual measurements.

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?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's a book. I am asking for you to present the math.

I already said I couldn't find it online. It is in the book in the notes.

 

[Loudmouth]

WE calculate the measurements by using the constants of Physics.

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

I already said I couldn't find it online. It is in the book in the notes.

It is hard to have a discussion with a book.

 

[Davian]

What is you then?

I don't see why it matters.

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.

Have we not had this conversation about you being so evasive of the burden of proof? Your claim, your burden.

However, I did meet that burden. Without access to other universes for comparison purposes, the appearance of design cannot be established as necessitating a designer.

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.

Well, until you have this testable definition of "design", your claims of the universe being designed are dead in the water.

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."

So how do we know that this number hasn't been just pulled from the air?

Show the math.

Have you heard of the term "snipe hunt"?

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.

I was referring to your definition, not his. You used the word "immaterial" in yours.

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.

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. 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.

Firstly, you say "Also, I do presuppose design, but I do not use the failure of the opposing view as support for my claim."

followed by this "I am comparing one view to the other."

Can we agree that the failure of others' worldviews, straw versions or not, does not count as validation for one's own?

Secondly, they do support the appearance of design, but not design. You appear to conflate the two. Let's look at your words again, with some added clarifications:

You said "While it is understood that there is no proof that God is behind this (presupposition of) design or whether or not it is The Christian God, it does prove that the design of the universe and those governing principles fit within the worldview of the Christian consistently but fail in the naturalistic worldview."

Are you happy with the above version, where your presupposition is called out?

I have shown that it is not.

No you have not.

Nope. See above.

Nope. See above.

And keep in mind that even in the absence of anyone holding a "naturalistic" worldview, it does not let you off the hook for establishing your claims of a "designed" universe or the existence of deities. While interesting, this comparing of worldviews is ultimately a waste of your time.

Ok. However, if you are not inclined to share your position in the discussion it seems to be unwarranted to ask me for mine.

Is this a retraction of your claim that the universe was designed?

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.

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?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

 

[lasthero]

Seems reasonable until you realize that the numbers of the lottery and the universe are not comparable.

What are the numbers of the universe and how did you get these numbers?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is hard to have a discussion with a book.

I understand but I don't have access to it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why?

First off, can you show that the speed of light (or any constant) can be any different than what it was?

What difference does it make?

Also, how many universes are there?

How does that relate?

 

[Loudmouth]

Winning the lottery is 100% possible and the odds are that someone wins.

So why doesn't the same apply to universes?

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.

Why aren't they comparable?