Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

I try to be pragmatic about it. While I haven't gone through a lot of tests my sense is that I should trust a mechanic who offers natural explanations for car problems and a physical rational way of fixing it. It may be that a mechanic that believes in gremlins and offers an incantation to fix my car is better but I'd like to see some solid evidence for that. It may be that otters are nyads and gravity is angels pushing the planets around but in my experience this hasn't proved to be a successful program for understanding the world and remains lacking in any empirical demonstration or measurement.

While I totally support the scientific methodology and the incredible success thereof, science is totally dependent upon the metaphysical aspects of the universe to "know" anything. The fact that the universe is uniform and consistent in nature is the only way science works. The metaphysical elements in our universe provide the foundation for all scientific endeavor. So you imply that the "supernatural" is not measurable while using the "supernatural" to gain knowledge of the natural.

 

[Davian]

If you don't care enough to bring it forward, I don't care enough to go and get it.

As I said, it was *your* point.

So go tell it to the people who write the definitions for the online dictionary.

im·ma·te·ri·al (

m

-tîr

-

l)adj.1. Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.
2. Having no material body or form.

im

ma·te

ri·al·ly adv.
im

ma·te

ri·al·ness n.
Synonyms: immaterial, incorporeal, insubstantial, metaphysical, spiritual
These adjectives mean lacking material body, form, or substance: immaterial apparitions; an incorporeal spirit; insubstantial victories; metaphysical forces; spiritual beings. See Also Synonyms at irrelevant.

God is irrelevant? I could have told you that.

Comfy in there?

My worldview is validated by your evasiveness. Very comfy, thanks.

How is it unfalsifiable?

It is not testable. Did you not know that? Are you still not clear on the implications of unfalsifiability?

Just not interested.

I feel the same about the bible.

Considering you don't add anything to the conversation in your own words it is hard not to. If you don't want me speaking for you or making unfounded assumptions you have to supply content.

Don't make excuses.

Oh but it is. You are always claiming the God did it argument as being simple and far reaching. I think that the simplest answer is usually true. It is pointless to do more what is done with less.

Where did I say that "the God did it argument as being simple and far reaching"? Post # please.

Exactly. If something looks designed it is the simplest assumption that it is indeed designed.

Not without a testable definition of "God" first, that demonstrates that what you mean by "God" is in fact simple. You have not done that.

If actual design is the simplest assumption and I imagine all agree, then the burden of proof switches to you. However, we were talking about opinion and that is equal.

You admit all you have is opinion? And have we not had the discussion about you and your evasiveness of your burden of evidence?

How so? We use mathematical equations to test with computers to calculate the result. Sounds like testing to me.

What specific testing did they do?

You said you had other means of knowledge other than empirical so it is your claim. Lets hear it.

Where did I say that?

I told you I am not out to prove God. I am supporting my worldview with evidence. You continue to lack comprehension of the concept.

So your worldview is like a fancy umbrella, that is lightweight, compact, and folds up easy. Just don't take it out in the rain because it will get ruined?

I was providing an example of the inconsistency.

No, you did not provide an example.

It is consistent, logical, and reasonable within the worldview.

So is tooth fairies and Easter Bunnies in others'.

You have a problem with it in yours.

Where, specifically?

Well if that is the case we can move on.

I never said that. I said we have no evidence for a UCA.

That is not rejection of anything. It is simply the truth. There very well might be a UCA but there is not one that can be empirically tested or experienced. The fact that all three domains are the culmination of genetic material found in all life forms provides only evidence for the three domains.

A distinction without a difference.

And, as I have said before, even if you could falsify the theory, or part of the theory of evolution, it doesn't validate anyone's religion.

No, I am quite sure I am not.

Are all facts demonstrable?

Is all water wet?

If I claimed something to be fact, would you expect it to be demonstrable?

No, projecting?

Amused.

Well you need to show me where they are unfalsifiable.

No, I don't. You claim, your burden of evidence. Present your evidence in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis. That means you show how it is testable and falsifiable within our current scientific abilities. Have I mentioned that?

That is no fault of mine. If you don't want your position to be falsely assumed then you might want to present your own views.

My view is that you will continue to be evasive about the claims you continue to make.

I told you what I was doing.

And I told you to put that crutch down. But here we are, and you are still hobbling around on it.

You are not the real patient sort.

I think I will have to be, if I am waiting for you to come up with that math you have gone in search for.

Did you ever look up "snipe hunt"?

 

[Davian]

I don't believe in Frankencell as all known living cells require information (DNA) , matter (machines) and energy.

To all who believes in Frankencell may find this interesting:
The Unexplained Files: Blood Red Rain : Video : Science Channel

That it not what I asked.

Are you going to post this "strong scientific evidence" or will you keep it to yourself?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

While I totally support the scientific methodology and the incredible success thereof, science is totally dependent upon the metaphysical aspects of the universe to "know" anything. The fact that the universe is uniform and consistent in nature is the only way science works. The metaphysical elements in our universe provide the foundation for all scientific endeavor. So you imply that the "supernatural" is not measurable while using the "supernatural" to gain knowledge of the natural.

And as I said the only way we can interpret the universe as reliable and consistent is to assume that there are no supernatural entities messing with it. Otherwise our interpretation of any observation or experiment is meaningless.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And as I said the only way we can interpret the universe as reliable and consistent is to assume that there are no supernatural entities messing with it. Otherwise our interpretation of any observation or experiment is meaningless.

First that is a straw man. It is illogical to assume that God being an intelligent being who created the universe with laws and forces and comprehensibility would "mess" it up.

You can interpret anything thing you want, however, is it reasonable to do so. If the universe was just a mindless natural outcome of particles and forces coming together how could you determine tomorrow would be the same as yesterday? If you claim it has always been so, you still have no reason to believe there is any reason for the outcome to remain the same in any given day. You assume what you assume metaphysically. You just prefer your metaphysical beliefs to mine.

 

[Loudmouth]

We only know that constants are consistent with our universe. How particles react or interact, what those particles may be or if they would remain constant is unknowable let alone falsifiable. Remember you are the one that claims you do not accept anything other than what can be found through empirical methodology.

And we find that constants are just that, constant.

I am beginning to believe that you are not understanding the premise of fine tuning. The constants are constant...hence constants. The fine tuning is not after the fact. The fine tuning had to happen all simultaneously in the big bang (or creation) of the universe. That is what is so amazing about it. All those constants had to be present all at the same time for the universe to be the way it is.

If the constants were different then we would have a different universe that also has unique characteristics that are specific to those constants. You will have a fine tuned universe no matter what the constants are.

There is no naturalistic reason to explain all this.

Argument from ignorance.

It is rather like the glass is half full half empty situation.

If the Universe is fine tuned for life why is there life on only one planet out of billions?

You realize this is rather ridiculous right? There is no way I can believe that you actually think that.

How is the universe fine tuned for life more so than it is fine tuned for the Face on Mars, or the Sombrero Galaxy?

Evidence for other universes? None? So why do you assume what every universe would be dependent on would be constants or any other element of ours;

Evidence that there is just our universe? None? So why assume that our universe is the only one?

No it is more like this: You are blindfolded in front of a firing squad. The squad is 100 strong. The shots ring out and there you stand, unharmed. Did 100 marksman fail to make the shot or do you believe they had a purpose for you to remain alive?

You are blind folded and there are 1 trillion rifles pointed in a random direction about 100 yards from you. What are the chances you will be hit by a random shot? Quite high.

It was your claim. You said that there is no supernatural explanation anywhere to be found.

And you have yet to present one.

True, and that is how science should be done.

I have given evidence to support those beliefs, that is how it works.

You once again refuse to present the evidence.

ICR for one. We will have to see if they can remain unbiased in the conclusions.

What experiments are they running? What research are they doing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I said, it was *your* point.

So?

God is irrelevant? I could have told you that.

This just points to your denial of anything that I would present in anyway shape or form. You will deny even if it makes you look illogical. I prove my point and you make a joke.

My worldview is validated by your evasiveness. Very comfy, thanks.

I haven't been evasive at all. I answer your questions, they are just not to your personal liking.

It is not testable. Did you not know that? Are you still not clear on the implications of unfalsifiability?

Tell me specifically how it is unfalsifiable. Just declaring it to be is not sufficient.

I feel the same about the bible.

That is your choice.

Don't make excuses.

It's true, if you don't present your views you can't blame me for assumptions or misrepresenting you.

Where did I say that "the God did it argument as being simple and far reaching"? Post # please.

When you keep implying that I am using the God did it argument. Are you saying that by using that argument you are not implying that God did it is a simple and far reaching argument that covers anything and everything?

Not without a testable definition of "God" first, that demonstrates that what you mean by "God" is in fact simple. You have not done that.

I didn't say anything about God. I said that if something appears to be designed the simplest answer is that it probably is.

You admit all you have is opinion? And have we not had the discussion about you and your evasiveness of your burden of evidence?

I admit no such thing. I was referring to the post and that post alone. I supplied evidence which you repeatedly deny and call it unfalsifiable. You don't say why it is unfalsifiable, which is pretty hard to do since it is scientific evidence that in SOME people's worldview has to be falsifiable to be scientific. So I have given evidence, have not been evasive in doing so.

What specific testing did they do?

Constants of Physics and Mathematics

You can click on the specific constant and understand their calculations.

Math Constants

They used these equations, putting them into a computer programmed to reflect our universe and made adjustments to the constants (measurements) and used varying methods that included using one constant to using a multitude of them.

Where did I say that?

Post #880:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

So do you believe that there is nothing that can be known outside of scientific empirical knowledge?
​

No, I am open to other means of exploring reality. However, I do not think your unfalsifiable claims are making any progress.

So your worldview is like a fancy umbrella, that is lightweight, compact, and folds up easy. Just don't take it out in the rain because it will get ruined?

This is just an opinion and has absolutely no validity.

No, you did not provide an example.

So I am not providing evidence or examples according to you. What constitutes evidence if not scientific evidence and what constitutes example if ...well if there are examples. You do realize that it seems quite illogical of you to continually deny evidence that is provided by experts in their fields and when there is only one way example can be interpreted. An example is:
verb
past participle: exampled; verb: example; 3rd person present: examples; gerund or present participle: exampling
1.
be illustrated or exemplified.

So is tooth fairies and Easter Bunnies in others'.

Oh, stooping to this are you? Ok. So please provide examples of adults that believe in tooth fairies or the Easter bunny.

Where, specifically?

Anywhere in it actually.

A distinction without a difference.

Untrue, there is no evidence for the UCA. That is the difference.

And, as I have said before, even if you could falsify the theory, or part of the theory of evolution, it doesn't validate anyone's religion.

Like I said before and you continue to ignore. I am not trying to establish my religion or worldview on the lack of another. I am showing that the opposing worldview is inconsistent within itself and self-refutes. IF you and others wish to claim that Theists are believing in something irrational and inconsistent with the universe it stands to reason that we can point out the inconsistencies and problems in the opposing worldview.

Is all water wet?

If I claimed something to be fact, would you expect it to be demonstrable?

Well, lets see if all of the scientific postulates are determined to be true by being demonstrable. Suppose for a moment that we are on a desert island and we have never heard of opposing views on cosmic movement. We can demonstrate a geocentric view of the cosmos. We know that we see the earth stands still and that the sun moves across our sky. So in comes someone that claims that it is not the earth that is still but the sun, the heliocentric view is presented. Both views are demonstrable but not both are true. So while demonstrative evidence is useful in our understandings of the universe we live it, it doesn't supply absolute proof. It doesn't even guarantee truth. So while demonstrable evidence is important it is not conclusive nor is it in reality always true.

Amused.

Awe, my work is done.

No, I don't. You claim, your burden of evidence. Present your evidence in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis. That means you show how it is testable and falsifiable within our current scientific abilities. Have I mentioned that?

Show me how it is not.

My view is that you will continue to be evasive about the claims you continue to make.

Show me how.

And I told you to put that crutch down. But here we are, and you are still hobbling around on it.

And you keep hiding in your comfy safe position above it all.

I think I will have to be, if I am waiting for you to come up with that math you have gone in search for.

I have a message in to him, that is all I can do. I am waiting for his response.

Did you ever look up "snipe hunt"?

Have you ever looked up snide.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And we find that constants are just that, constant.

In our universe. There is nothing that would point to other universes let alone universe with or even without the constants we see in ours. It is outside empirical evidence which you claim you restrict your acceptance to.

If the constants were different then we would have a different universe that also has unique characteristics that are specific to those constants. You will have a fine tuned universe no matter what the constants are.

Where is your evidence of this alternate universe? How do you prove that the physics are anywhere near what ours are, or have the ability to form life of any kind or have constants of any kind. Where is your evidence to make such a statement?

Argument from ignorance.

No, it is an argument from consistency. You claim that your position is that only the natural explanation that can be empirically shown is evidence for anything.

If the Universe is fine tuned for life why is there life on only one planet out of billions?

Exactly.

How is the universe fine tuned for life more so than it is fine tuned for the Face on Mars, or the Sombrero Galaxy?

IF you can't see this, nothing I would say would matter in the least. You know, you have to know the immense difference of those examples. I have to believe that you really do and you are just being contrary. :o

Evidence that there is just our universe? None? So why assume that our universe is the only one?

There is only evidence of one. You have no evidence of any more than one. This is just exemplifying that you will allow elements without one shred of evidence if it fits within your worldview. Point proven.

You are blind folded and there are 1 trillion rifles pointed in a random direction about 100 yards from you. What are the chances you will be hit by a random shot? Quite high.

You would be killed, just like there would be no life if the measurements in this universe were minimally adjusted to anything other than what they are.

And you have yet to present one.

It was your claim. However, we just had one above. You are providing a supernatural explanation for the constants of physics. You are claiming that alternate universes exist and that is supernatural in nature. You have not natural evidence to provide for that conclusion.

True, and that is how science should be done.

Science works as long as it doesn't step out into the metaphysical, which of course is impossible.

You once again refuse to present the evidence.

I have, you just refuse to accept it.

What experiments are they running? What research are they doing?

I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. We will see if they can provide useful information. It is in its infancy.

 

[OllieFranz]

First that is a straw man. It is illogical to assume that God being an intelligent being who created the universe with laws and forces and comprehensibility would "mess" it up.

He did not say "mess it up." He said "mess with it." There is a big difference.

As a Christian I believe in God. I believe that He can perform what we call miracles. He can cause events that do not, or do not appear to, follow the laws of nature. However, since He wants us to understand those laws, He does not perform those miracles often, and always warns us first. He normally does not interfere with ("mess with") those laws, so that we can study them.

So it makes sense to me that science should be based on a naturalistic methodology, ignoring any possible miracles. For atheists and agnostics, a naturalistic methodology is the only possible basis. So we are all approaching science in the same way.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

First that is a straw man. It is illogical to assume that God being an intelligent being who created the universe with laws and forces and comprehensibility would "mess" it up.

Actually the fundamental assumption is that he isn't messing it up.

You can interpret anything thing you want, however, is it reasonable to do so. If the universe was just a mindless natural outcome of particles and forces coming together how could you determine tomorrow would be the same as yesterday?

Because of the lack of a sufficiently powerful supernatural being capable and willing to change their behaviour tomorrow.

If you claim it has always been so, you still have no reason to believe there is any reason for the outcome to remain the same in any given day. You assume what you assume metaphysically.

Yes.

You just prefer your metaphysical beliefs to mine.

Well mine have proved very useful and successful lo the last few hundred years. We can have confidence in the results of science by assuming that they are the product of natural interactions which haven't been altered by undetectable supernatural forces with inscrutable purposes.

Imagine doing a bunch of experiments to determine the boiling point of a substance. How could we rely on the results if we admitted the possibility that a supernatural being was responsible for the results? That wouldn't be a measurement of the thing we call a "boiling point" but instead a measurement of what a supernatural being had decided to do in that lab on that day. We would have discovered nothing. Tomorrow that being could decide to make the substance boil at a different temperature.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He did not say "mess it up." He said "mess with it." There is a big difference.

I was assuming that he meant if God exists the constants and the universe would be under constant "messing" with by God. Which is totally not the case but the exact opposite. God make the universe uniform and constant for man to observe and gain knowledge which points to His existence.

As a Christian I believe in God. I believe that He can perform what we call miracles. He can cause events that do not, or do not appear to, follow the laws of nature. However, since He wants us to understand those laws, He does not perform those miracles often, and always warns us first. He normally does not interfere with ("mess with") those laws, so that we can study them.

I don't disagree with any of that.

So it makes sense to me that science should be based on a naturalistic methodology, ignoring any possible miracles. For atheists and agnostics, a naturalistic methodology is the only possible basis. So we are all approaching science in the same way.

We do indeed come to the methodology at the same point, however, theists know the universe has been intelligently designed which makes it comprehensible and atheist/agnostics must accept it all the while denying that the metaphysical is the foundation on which they work.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

He did not say "mess it up." He said "mess with it." There is a big difference.

As a Christian I believe in God. I believe that He can perform what we call miracles. He can cause events that do not, or do not appear to, follow the laws of nature. However, since He wants us to understand those laws, He does not perform those miracles often, and always warns us first. He normally does not interfere with ("mess with") those laws, so that we can study them.

So it makes sense to me that science should be based on a naturalistic methodology, ignoring any possible miracles. For atheists and agnostics, a naturalistic methodology is the only possible basis. So we are all approaching science in the same way.

Quite so.

 

[Smidlee]

That it not what I asked.

Are you going to post this "strong scientific evidence" or will you keep it to yourself?

The simplest bacteria known to man which can reproduce has 580,000 based pairs of DNA. This is the known minimum. This is science while Frankencell is still science fiction.

 

[Loudmouth]

The simplest bacteria known to man which can reproduce has 580,000 based pairs of DNA. This is the known minimum.

That bacteria is the product of 4 billion years of evolution, so it is hardly the model of the simplest possible replicator.

 

[Smidlee]

That bacteria is the product of 4 billion years of evolution, so it is hardly the model of the simplest possible replicator.

That's a statement of faith. There another more likely possibility , Frankencell never exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

In our universe. There is nothing that would point to other universes let alone universe with or even without the constants we see in ours. It is outside empirical evidence which you claim you restrict your acceptance to.

The empirical knowledge that I have shows that these values are constant in universes.

Where is your evidence of this alternate universe?

We don't know how many universes there are which is why your probability arguments are worthless. You need to know how many universes there are before you can claim that our universe could not have the constants it has through chance.

No, it is an argument from consistency. You claim that your position is that only the natural explanation that can be empirically shown is evidence for anything.

I am saying that "I believe . . ." is only evidence of the gullibility of the person saying "I believe . . . ".

You keep saying that you believe God designed the Universe, and that is supposed to be evidence somehow. I don't see why I have to accept your beliefs as evidence.

IF you can't see this, nothing I would say would matter in the least. You know, you have to know the immense difference of those examples. I have to believe that you really do and you are just being contrary. :o

I don't see the immense differences between the two. Show me what they are.

If the constants were just a little bit different we couldn't have galaxies like the Sombrero galaxy, or planets with the geology of Mars. By your own argument, that means that the universe is fine tuned for the Sombrero galaxy and the Face on Mars.

There is only evidence of one. You have no evidence of any more than one.

I have no evidence that this universe is the only one. Again, you are saying that our universe could not have these constants by chance. You need to support this claim.

You would be killed, just like there would be no life if the measurements in this universe were minimally adjusted to anything other than what they are.

There would also be no Face on Mars or a Sombrero Galaxy. Instead, that universe would have unique characteristics that do not occur in our universe. In fact, those characteristics would depend on the exact constants that the universe has. It would be fine tuned for what you find in that universe.

You are providing a supernatural explanation for the constants of physics.

No, I am not. Nowhere do I say that the constants come from a deity.

I have, you just refuse to accept it.

You once again refuse to present the evidence.

I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. We will see if they can provide useful information. It is in its infancy.

Doesn't it cause you discomfort that they aren't even trying?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a statement of faith.

I have the evidence. No faith is required.

 

[Davian]

So?

How much effort do you expect me to put into the establishing of your point that even you seem to have forgotten?

This just points to your denial of anything that I would present in anyway shape or form. You will deny even if it makes you look illogical. I prove my point and you make a joke.

I haven't been evasive at all. I answer your questions, they are just not to your personal liking.

You have not presented testable criteria for determining design of universes, or objective evidence that the universal constants cannot be different, or presented your evidence in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis. You could try those.

It is not testable. Did you not know that? Are you still not clear on the implications of unfalsifiability?

Tell me specifically how it is unfalsifiable. Just declaring it to be is not sufficient.

It is not testable.

Did you not know that?

Are you still not clear on the implications of unfalsifiability?

That is your choice.

It's true, if you don't present your views you can't blame me for assumptions or misrepresenting you.

They are still irrelevant to establishing the validity of your claims.

When you keep implying that I am using the God did it argument. Are you saying that by using that argument you are not implying that God did it is a simple and far reaching argument that covers anything and everything?

Post # please.

I didn't say anything about God. I said that if something appears to be designed the simplest answer is that it probably is.

How did you establish that probability, on the subject of universes? How any have you seen?

I admit no such thing. I was referring to the post and that post alone. I supplied evidence which you repeatedly deny and call it unfalsifiable. You don't say why it is unfalsifiable, which is pretty hard to do since it is scientific evidence that in SOME people's worldview has to be falsifiable to be scientific. So I have given evidence, have not been evasive in doing so.

It is unfalsifiable as it lacks testable criteria. Can you recall if I have asked you for that? Yes or no?

Constants of Physics and Mathematics

You can click on the specific constant and understand their calculations.

Math Constants

They used these equations, putting them into a computer programmed to reflect our universe and made adjustments to the constants (measurements) and used varying methods that included using one constant to using a multitude of them.

The context is, can those constants be different? What specific testing did they do? I do not see that on that page.

Post #880:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

So do you believe that there is nothing that can be known outside of scientific empirical knowledge?
​

No, I am open to other means of exploring reality. However, I do not think your unfalsifiable claims are making any progress.

I asked, where did I say that I had other means of exploring reality? Post # please. Cut and paste, as you say.

This is just an opinion and has absolutely no validity.

No, it is an analogy. You want to compare umbrellas. I don't have mine handy, but let's see how yours works out in a rainstorm. You decline, as you don't want to get it wet (test it). You just want to point out where you think you see holes in other's umbrellas.

So I am not providing evidence or examples according to you. What constitutes evidence if not scientific evidence and what constitutes example if ...well if there are examples. You do realize that it seems quite illogical of you to continually deny evidence that is provided by experts in their fields and when there is only one way example can be interpreted. An example is:
verb
past participle: exampled; verb: example; 3rd person present: examples; gerund or present participle: exampling
1.
be illustrated or exemplified.

Good gravy.

The subject was Loudmouth, and I asked if there were instances where he had presented elements of his worldview that did not meet his strict criteria but had claimed otherwise. All you said was "Yes". No examples.

Are you having trouble with this forum format of discussion?

Oh, stooping to this are you? Ok. So please provide examples of adults that believe in tooth fairies or the Easter bunny.

Why must they be adults? Do you so quickly discount the beliefs of younger individuals?

Are you not comfortable with stepping out of your worldview? I try to leave mine to the side whenever possible.

Anywhere in it actually.

Where, specifically?

Untrue, there is no evidence for the UCA. That is the difference.

Absolute statements such as that are of no value. What are you going to do, prove that there is no evidence? How did you do that?

Like I said before and you continue to ignore. I am not trying to establish my religion or worldview on the lack of another. I am showing that the opposing worldview is inconsistent within itself and self-refutes. IF you and others wish to claim that Theists are believing in something irrational and inconsistent with the universe it stands to reason that we can point out the inconsistencies and problems in the opposing worldview.

The bolded sentences are in contradiction to each other. See the unbrella analogy above. And, it is only this hypothetical materialist worldview you keep dragging out to poke at. Are you not comfortable with stepping out of your worldview? I try to leave mine to the side whenever possible.

I don't claim that theists believe in something irrational and inconsistent, the burden is on them to demonstrate otherwise. No false dichotomies are used or abused in the process. Not by me, anyway.

Well, lets see if all of the scientific postulates are determined to be true by being demonstrable. Suppose for a moment that we are on a desert island and we have never heard of opposing views on cosmic movement. We can demonstrate a geocentric view of the cosmos. We know that we see the earth stands still and that the sun moves across our sky. So in comes someone that claims that it is not the earth that is still but the sun, the heliocentric view is presented. Both views are demonstrable but not both are true. So while demonstrative evidence is useful in our understandings of the universe we live it, it doesn't supply absolute proof. It doesn't even guarantee truth. So while demonstrable evidence is important it is not conclusive nor is it in reality always true.

Both views are falsifiable, but one has not been falsified.

I am not asking for absolute proof, or demanding truth. I asked, if I claimed something to be fact, would you expect it to be demonstrable?

Awe, my work is done.

Show me how it is not.

Show me how.

Show you how to present your claims in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis? I don't think it can be done. Many others have tried, for sure.

What will you do if you can't?

And you keep hiding in your comfy safe position above it all.

Not at all. The premises on which I base my worldview are tentative, and subject to falsification. Comfy, as it does not appear to be falsified anytime soon, but safe? No.

I have a message in to him, that is all I can do. I am waiting for his response.

Have you ever looked up snide.

How about, courtesy. Would you rather be told that you are off on a snipe hunt now, or not be told?

 

[Davian]

The simplest bacteria known to man which can reproduce has 580,000 based pairs of DNA. This is the known minimum. This is science while Frankencell is still science fiction.

Opinion.

Still none of this "strong scientific evidence" you claimed to have.

You don't have any, do you? You were just bluffing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The empirical knowledge that I have shows that these values are constant in universes.

You have empirical knowledge of the constants of this universe and this one alone. You have no empirical knowledge of any other universes. You have no empirical knowledge that universes other than our own exist.

We don't know how many universes there are which is why your probability arguments are worthless. You need to know how many universes there are before you can claim that our universe could not have the constants it has through chance.

You must see that the conclusion that you come to is based solely on opinion and presuppositions which self refute your own belief system. You are claiming that my position of fine tuning is worthless (something that you have no empirical evidence to support) you are claiming we don't know how many universe there may be (although we can only empirically show there is one) and that this has to be taken into account when determining if the constants arose from chance (which by their vary nature would seem so unlikely that it is absurd to think they came about by chance).

It must be said that even if there were other universes, this doesn't mean that it explains the fine tuning in this one. If there are more universes and the multiverse is meant to explain the cosmic fine tuning, how do we limit the number of possible worlds and if we can't, we have no apparent limit on the number of possible mutiverses. Some would contain a universe like ours but many, maybe even most will not. So we still remain with the fine tuning in ours and must explain why our multiverse contains the ability to produce at least one universe that supports intelligent life rather than none and how that the constants within it are fine tuned in such a way as to produce it and why this multiverse exists rather than another.

You keep saying that you believe God designed the Universe, and that is supposed to be evidence somehow. I don't see why I have to accept your beliefs as evidence.

I keep saying that there is evidence to support that God designed the universe. I am not asking you to accept my beliefs, I am asking you to honestly assess the evidence that supports my claim.

I don't see the immense differences between the two. Show me what they are.

If you don't see the immense difference between even the simplest cell to the weathered worn geological features on another planet there is really no point.

If the constants were just a little bit different we couldn't have galaxies like the Sombrero galaxy, or planets with the geology of Mars. By your own argument, that means that the universe is fine tuned for the Sombrero galaxy and the Face on Mars.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, and in very unrelated way is true; the simplest form of life is immensely more complicated than the weathered result of geology on mars in comparison.

I have no evidence that this universe is the only one. Again, you are saying that our universe could not have these constants by chance. You need to support this claim.

That is all the evidence you do have. Science has not determined any natural reason for the fine tuning of the constants of our universe. You claim they are by chance and natural means. How do you support that claim? What evidence do you use to determine it?

There would also be no Face on Mars or a Sombrero Galaxy. Instead, that universe would have unique characteristics that do not occur in our universe. In fact, those characteristics would depend on the exact constants that the universe has. It would be fine tuned for what you find in that universe.

There is no possible reason to believe that another universe if it did indeed exist would have any relationship in material make up as ours. That means that there would most likely not have the forces that make this one. Regardless, you have nothing to base your conclusion on in the first place. No evidence for other universes and more specifically universes with any form of forces constant or otherwise. You can't argue for something that you don't have empirically proven if you remain true to your own standard of knowledge.

No, I am not. Nowhere do I say that the constants come from a deity.

But you are. Anything that can not be observed in the natural world is supernatural in nature. You can use Metaphysical if you wish.

You once again refuse to present the evidence.

You just refuse to accept it.

Doesn't it cause you discomfort that they aren't even trying?

Why would it?