Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MindOverMatter2 said:
Pointing out peoples dishonesty will get the thread shut down?

I think you are all just ganging up.
Click to expand...
I have seen it before. Stick to the issues and do not make negative comments about posters. It is the biggest reason for these threads being shut down.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
You are taking what i am saying out of context. Just because i don’t believe that there is scientific evidence of God (this is to say a valid scientific theory of God), does not mean that i don’t believe that the scientific data points to the existence of “fine tunning”.
Click to expand...
I guess you’re just enjoying some word games then. 🙂

You perhaps don’t realize that fine-tuning arguments are … :eek: … Intelligent Design arguments. Natural laws cannot explain complex, mathematical fine-tuning in the cosmos. An Intelligent Design is the best explanation for their origin and presence.

So, you either accept that – as Al does – or you reject it, and thus oppose him.
However, what i don’t believe just like those scientists, is that you can make an inference to God based on fine tunning using the scientific method alone.
Click to expand...
My friend – you cannot make ANY scientific inferences using the scientific method alone. Inferences are philosophical explanations – they do not exist in a laboratory.

Thankfully we got that solved now!! You accept cosmological ID and you will cease making the strawman argument about “science directly observing God”, Ok? 🙂
I can however make a philosophical inference to a intelligent being that created the laws of nature so as to hold certain values which are necessary for the existence of our kind of Universe, including biological development.
Click to expand...
Ooops – let’s go back to fine-tuning. Don’t be so quick to run away.

The natural laws do not explain the fine-tuning. That’s why we see them as evidence of Intelligent Design.

If you’re with me on that, then we made some huge progress.
 
Please can we return to the topic! There is no valid reason to divert this thread with remarks about individuals.

The present issue is whether disasters happen according to natural laws and are **never **prevented by God… Yes or no? Why or why not?

In other words is Design entirely by very remote control? 🙂
 
reggieM said:
No, I don’t know your views – that’s why I’m probing them.
Click to expand...
If you don’t know my views you have not paid attention at all. Which does not surprise me. In fact, it is quite clear to me that you have not paid attention at all.
In fact, I’ve seen contradictions and inconsistencies in your views – and you’ve even changed your opinion in the course of the discussion (which is a good thing).
Click to expand...
Yes, I changed my opinion on an issue that is not related to the things currently discussed. Again you are engaging in distortions and deceptions.

Having said that, yes it is a good thing when you can change your mind.
 
reggieM said:
I guess you’re just enjoying some word games then. 🙂

You perhaps don’t realize that fine-tuning arguments are … :eek: … Intelligent Design arguments.
Click to expand...
There are arguments that attempt to philosophically demonstrate that fine tunning can only be the product of design. Thats all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the natural sciences, physics or cosmology. You can recognize that physical reality has particular values without making a committed inference to design. To admit that physical reality is finally tuned in a scientific context is simply to say that some physical values cannot easily be explained or cannot be explained at all in reference to an antecedent physical cause; that they are a given fact of the big-bang and that those values are necessary for are particular kind of universe. Its not the same thing as presenting a scientific theory of God or intelligent design. It is to speak of an epistemological limitation in the scientific method.
Natural laws cannot explain complex, mathematical fine-tuning in the cosmos.
Click to expand...
So?
An Intelligent Design is the best explanation for their origin and presence.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But its not a scientific explanation of the universe.
So, you either accept that – as Al does – or you reject it, and thus oppose him.
Click to expand...
My friend – you cannot make ANY scientific inferences using the scientific method alone. Inferences are philosophical explanations – they do not exist in a laboratory.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand Science or philosophy; although it is clear from what you have said here that you want them to be the same thing.
 
Notice that when i am accused of “word games” buffalo didn’t jump to the rescue.:rolleyes:
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I don’t think you understand Science or philosophy; although it is clear from what you have said here that you want them to be the same thing.
Click to expand...
That is one of the main problems pervading this thread – the continual confusion of philosophy with science by the biological ID proponents.
 
Al_Moritz said:
That is one of the main problems pervading this thread – the continual confusion of philosophy with science by the biological ID proponents.
Click to expand...
This type of remark does nothing to further the discussion. It would be more to the point to give a specific example of your claim…
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
To admit that physical reality is finally tuned in a scientific context is simply to say that some physical values cannot easily be explained or cannot be explained at all in reference to an antecedent physical cause
Click to expand...
That is a scientific argument. You use science to make that determination - on observable evidence. You rule out a cause by physical laws. Along with that, the features being observed show evidence of having been designed by intelligence.

Let’s take a look again at an example I offered on this thread over 600 posts ago:

Physicist Leonard Susskind: If, for some unforeseen reason, the [multiverse] turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

Even the atheist Susskind recognizes that fine-tuning demands an explanation. It supports the inference that ID is correct – that there is evidence of Intelligent Design in nature.

Again, this is not philosophical proof. It’s evidence that supports a proposal. Susskind has his own proposal – that there are an infinite number of universes, and therefore the fine-tuning we see is inevitable as the result of chance occurrences among a vast number of universes.

So, it’s a question of which is more reasonable … and also, that Intelligent Design must be at the very least, one possible answer for fine-tuning.

Again, this is scientific evidence that leads to an inference.
 
reggieM said:
Again, this is scientific evidence that leads to an inference.
Click to expand...
So according to you an infinite number of universes is a scientific theory?:rolleyes:

I stand by my original criticism that you don’t know how science or philosophy works.
 
tonyrey said:
👍 According to their hypothesis God doesn’t work miracles on principle! But no one has yet explained why He does absolutely nothing to alleviate suffering on this planet. :eek:
Click to expand...
Through the experience of suffering, one can still experience the joy of salvation.
 
inocente said:
:confused: tony, are you suggesting that ID has ownership on prayers of petition? The Lord’s prayer has no value for those of us who don’t believe in ID?
Click to expand...
Try not to pay attention to some off-the-wall thinking.
The Lord’s prayer is for everyone.
 
buffalo said:
I have seen it before. Stick to the issues and do not make negative comments about posters. It is the biggest reason for these threads being shut down.
Click to expand...
This thread is over the post limit and can be shut down at anytime…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top