Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

According to that argument any event that has occurred

Non sequitur. Significance does not depend on frequency or quantity.

The fact that “all Christians” do not hold a position is irrelevant, and a nice dodge there. Deflection.

Evasion! Your statement “We know dinosaurs got cancer, so nature never was in a “perfect” state, pre-fall” implies that cancer is attributed by** all** Christians to the Fall.

Define “chance”. There IS no such scientific term. Only probability.

This is a philosophy forum…

The word “chance”, is normally used, in these arguments as a pejorative term, but in fact, if YOUR Creator created the structure of Reality, probabilities it’s HOW HE wanted things to work.

I ignore abuse on principle.

You are STILL mixing up pre-event probability with post event probability. They are NOT the same. The ID argument also assumes, without explanation, that Bayesian statistics are applicable to the problem, in the first place. No one is saying they HAD to occur. The pre-event probability says what the non-certain pre-event probability may have been. The post event probability is 1.0. They are two entirely different concepts.

You have evaded and failed to refute my statement:

The issue is the relative distribution of possible orderly universes and possible disorderly universes…

All your “Perfect Creator” stuff is a corruption of the ID argument with YOUR FAITH position, and is not useful.

I
Argumentum ad hominem - in addition to being a false, unsubstantiated assertion.

If you NEED evidence for your faith, it bespeaks only your weak faith. Nothing more. Your statement that disease is a result of chance, and not the actions of God, is ASTOUNDING for a person of faith. OMG. I cannot believe you actually admitted that. Christian theology teaches nature was in a “preternatural” sate of perfection, until the Fall. Deflecting the argument, by saying it’s not held by “all”, has not answered the argument. You’re really very good at that sort of thing.

ID is interesting as in a scientific age, science is what is held in highest regard, so obviously people want to use it, so their positions appear to be supported by the popular paradigm/world view. In this case, it simply doesn’t work. “Design” assumes that what my brain sees as “designed”
a.( as Sair just reminded us), was MY concept of the Designer, (which it cannot address)
b. that the proximate designer, was the ultimate designer, (which is not established or even addressed, in the argument
c. that the reality, or a substantial portion of it, is apprehend-able to my brain,
d. that what makes intuitive sense to my brain, IS both real, and necessary. We know that ois NOT the care, (Dirac, Heisenberg, and Einstein).

The “contingent/non-contingent” argument is NOT what the ID argument is about.
a. Despite the cop-out in Aquinas’ “perfection” argument, (created being are not perfect because perfection exists only in the mind of God), a Perfect Creator, using this argument WOULD have created perfect creations, and anything less, implies a less than perfect Creator. So that argument is out.
b. “Contingency” presumes an already extant structure, (contingency vs non-contingency), in Reality. A Being who, of necessity is non-contingent, participates in only PART of that structure, and cannot be the Creator of the larger structure.

The argument : “The fine tuning of the universe involved not just one chance event as in winning the lottery, but involved the coordination of at least twenty universal constants coming together in the first moments of the Big Bang” is "god of the gaps’’, AND just a more complicated, but essentially the SAME mix-up, of pre event probabilities, with POST event probabilities.
From a scientific view, we simply don’t know, (yet). If there were a very very large number of universes which come and go, eventually one which has the properties of this one would “crystallize” out. The pre-event probability is low, but not zero. The more universes which pop into existence, the higher the probability one, or some “could”.

I ignore irrelevant abuse on principle - which infringes the forum rules in addition to being unChristian:

The issue is the relative distribution of possible orderly universes and possible disorderly universes…

Faith stands or falls on it’s own. Ultimately, this argument is answered ONLY by a faith position of the “designer”, of (your), choice. The ultimate question has not been answered here, by this argument.

If faith depends **entirely **on its own it is irrational. Jesus constantly gave **reasons **why we should believe His teaching.

NB To resort to invective is evidence that one’s reasoning is defective.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

What kind of design are you talking about?

I’m not talking about any kind of “design”. I’m merely pointing out that if life exists in almost “0” percent of time the universe exists, that certainly cannot be considered designed for life.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Non sequitur. Significance does not depend on frequency or quantity.

Evasion! Your statement “We know dinosaurs got cancer, so nature never was in a “perfect” state, pre-fall” implies that cancer is attributed by** all** Christians to the Fall.

This is a philosophy forum…
I ignore abuse on principle.

You have evaded and failed to refute my statement:

The issue is the relative distribution of possible orderly universes and possible disorderly universes…

I
Argumentum ad hominem - in addition to being a false, unsubstantiated assertion.

I ignore irrelevant abuse on principle - which infringes the forum rules in addition to being unChristian:

The issue is the relative distribution of possible orderly universes and possible disorderly universes…

If faith depends **entirely **on its own it is irrational. Jesus constantly gave **reasons **why we should believe His teaching.

NB To resort to invective is evidence that one’s reasoning is defective.

Wow. The perception of questions as abuse, and ad hominem, where clearly there is none, bespeaks only paranoia. I thought you were an intelligent person, able to discuss things. Obviously I misjudged greatly. Not one of my objections were addressed. Simply amazing. Obviously this board is a waste of my time.

I will ask to be removed form membership.

I leave with two observations.

1. ALL of Siar’s “elements” which HAD to come together, could be only one thing. “Unification” has not been done yet. Until it is, we “don’t know yet”, and to many people, unlike the Design people, that is acceptable. Why it would not be, is more about psychology, than “design”.
2. What YOUR brain perceives as “logical” and “intelligent” is the PRODUCT of your brain’s chemistry. So to confer “intelligence” on an external system, which YOUR brain has perceived, is a fallacy, and circular.

youtube.com/watch?v=wpSBdA0Dc14

I wish you all the best. Obviously, I can’t discuss anything with people who are raving paranoids, and perceive direct frank questions as threats, and abuse.

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not talking about any kind of “design”. I’m merely pointing out that if life exists in almost “0” percent of time the universe exists, that certainly cannot be considered designed for life.

Why?

 

[tonyrey]

Wow. The perception of questions as abuse, and ad hominem, where clearly there is none, bespeaks only paranoia. I thought you were an intelligent person, able to discuss things. Obviously I misjudged greatly. Not one of my objections were addressed. Simply amazing. Obviously this board is a waste of my time.

I will ask to be removed form membership.

I leave with two observations.

1. ALL of Siar’s “elements” which HAD to come together, could be only one thing. “Unification” has not been done yet. Until it is, we “don’t know yet”, and to many people, unlike the Design people, that is acceptable. Why it would not be, is more about psychology, than “design”.
2. What YOUR brain perceives as “logical” and “intelligent” is the PRODUCT of your brain’s chemistry. So to confer “intelligence” on an external system, which YOUR brain has perceived, is a fallacy, and circular.

youtube.com/watch?v=wpSBdA0Dc14

I wish you all the best. Obviously, I can’t discuss anything with people who are raving paranoids, and perceive direct frank questions as threats, and abuse.

God bless you, Jason.

 

[Sair]

The supernaturalist view is irrelevant to the fact that you attach so much importance to physical existence that you reject any other type of existence and yet you implicitly deny its immense value by asking why it was created…
That is a devaluation of physical existence! To argue that something is primarily valuable because it is unique throws doubt on its intrinsic value. It is more reasonable to believe life is immensely valuable for its own sake - regardless of any other consideration. To think otherwise amounts to believing in survival at all costs, no matter how miserable you are…

A false dilemma based on the assumption that there is no link between natural and supernatural existence, understandable when one rules out spiritual values in favour of animal pleasures. The materialist’s parochial mindset rejects all goals, ideals or principles unrelated to information from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin.
The absurd demand for economy (in forms of existence) demonstrates that the richness of both spiritual and physical reality is beyond the comprehension of a person so totally immersed in earthly things that any other form of existence is inconceivable…

And here we go round again. Instead of honestly addressing my argument, you just assert that you are right, on your own terms.

That’s all very well, but do bear in mind that you are being quite inconsistent by claiming that physical existence is immensely valuable at the same time as belittling it in favour of supernatural existence, whatever that may be.

As for physical existence being intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable for itself alone, how could it be otherwise if it constitutes the whole of our existence anyway? All value must therefore arise purely from physical existence. By contrast, from your perspective, physical existence cannot be valuable for itself alone, since there is, according to you, a higher, better level of existence beyond it for which our physical existence is but a preparation.

Hence my question, why - from your perspective, not mine - would your God dabble in physical creation when it’s obvious - again, from your perspective, not mine - that there is a higher, better medium for creation in the form of pure spiritual existence (whatever that may be)?

 

[tonyrey]

The supernaturalist view is irrelevant to the fact that you attach so much importance to physical existence that you reject any other type of existence and yet you implicitly deny its immense value by asking why it was created…
That is a devaluation of physical existence! To argue that something is primarily valuable because it is unique throws doubt on its intrinsic value. It is more reasonable to believe life is immensely valuable for its own sake - regardless of any other consideration. To think otherwise amounts to believing in survival at all costs, no matter how miserable you are…

The boot is on the other foot. You completely ignore my statements and then make a gratuitous, unsubstantiated assertion.

That’s all very well, but do bear in mind that you are being quite inconsistent by claiming that physical existence is immensely valuable at the same time as belittling it in favour of supernatural existence, whatever that may be.

I have pointed out that the absurd demand for economy (in forms of existence) demonstrates that the richness of both spiritual and physical reality is beyond the comprehension of a person so totally immersed in earthly things that any other form of existence is inconceivable.

In other words both physical existence and supernatural existence are immensely valuable and they complement each other. What possible reason is there for demanding that we choose one at the expense of the other?

As for physical existence being intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable for itself alone, how could it be otherwise if it constitutes the whole of our existence anyway?

Subjectivists believe nothing is intrinsically valuable! In your opinion a thing is not valuable for - or in - itself but only for the valuer.

All value must therefore arise purely from physical existence.

The subjectivist believes all value arises in the mind.

By contrast, from your perspective, physical existence cannot be valuable for itself alone, since there is, according to you, a higher, better level of existence beyond it for which our physical existence is but a preparation.

A distortion of Christianity. Our physical existence is valuable in its own right and an essential element of human existence. We believe we are embodied persons who will be resurrected because our physical nature is an indispensable part of our identity. The view that we are ghosts in machines is not the teaching of Christ or the Church.

Hence my question, why - from your perspective, not mine - would your God dabble in physical creation when it’s obvious - again, from your perspective, not mine - that there is a higher, better medium for creation in the form of pure spiritual existence (whatever that may be)?

Why do you insist on dabbling in false dilemmas when it is abundantly clear that the Incarnation is irrefutable evidence that God values physical existence to such an extent that He is prepared to live among us and share our joys and sorrows? Your misguided attack applies to Platonism and Manichaeism but certainly not to orthodox Christianity…

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m not talking about any kind of “design”. I’m merely pointing out that if life exists in almost “0” percent of time the universe exists, that certainly cannot be considered designed for life.

This is a complete non sequitur, the illogic of which, like most errors, can most easily be seen as such by analogy. To wit, if a large machine turns out a product a miniscule proportion of its size, and only after a long and laborious amount of time, the machine cannot be considered to have been designed to produce that particular thing. This is clearly erroneous.

 

[Sair]

The boot is on the other foot. You completely ignore my statements and then make a gratuitous, unsubstantiated assertion.

Actually, it was a simple observation - you are not addressing the questions I am asking or the arguments I am venturing. You are distorting my queries into the form of queries that might be made by someone who believes in supernatural entities.

I have pointed out that the absurd demand for economy (in forms of existence) demonstrates that the richness of both spiritual and physical reality is beyond the comprehension of a person so totally immersed in earthly things that any other form of existence is inconceivable.

To claim that physical existence is the totality of existence, as I have now frequently pointed out, is only a diminishment if one assumes, as you appear to, that there actually is some other form of existence. To suppose that physical reality cannot encompass all the richness of life that we experience is - again, as I have frequently pointed out - quite premature, when we don’t actually know all there is to be known about physical reality.

In other words both physical existence and supernatural existence are immensely valuable and they complement each other.

How can they, when there has never been any explanation forthcoming as to how supernatural and natural entities could ever interact or influence one another?

What possible reason is there for demanding that we choose one at the expense of the other?

Perhaps the utter inadequacy of attempts thus far to split reality into two species - we know physical entities exist, even though we don’t know everything about them; we don’t know that there is any such thing as supernatural reality. Can you point out the dividing line between the two?

Subjectivists believe nothing is intrinsically valuable! In your opinion a thing is not valuable for - or in - itself but only for the valuer.

A valuer whose existence is entirely physical. The question of value is fraught in any case - it’s not clear how something can be valuable unless it is valuable to something or someone. That issue might be solved by supposing there is a divine being to whom all things are valuable, but I’d still hesitate to say that this confers intrinsic value on anything.

A distortion of Christianity. Our physical existence is valuable in its own right and an essential element of human existence. We believe we are embodied persons who will be resurrected because our physical nature is an indispensable part of our identity. The view that we are ghosts in machines is not the teaching of Christ or the Church.

And yet somehow the rest of physical existence is to be valued only because it allows the physical aspect of humanity to flourish, right? Unless all physical entities have this duality, it’s hard to see how physical reality could be valuable purely for itself.

Why do you insist on dabbling in false dilemmas when it is abundantly clear that the Incarnation is irrefutable evidence that God values physical existence to such an extent that He is prepared to live among us and share our joys and sorrows? Your misguided attack applies to Platonism and Manichaeism but certainly not to orthodox Christianity…

Rather than risk having the thread shut down, I will simply point out that the Incarnation, as Christian doctrine holds it, is very, very far from being irrefutable evidence of anything supernatural.

 

[Sair]

This is a complete non sequitur, the illogic of which, like most errors, can most easily be seen as such by analogy. To wit, if a large machine turns out a product a miniscule proportion of its size, and only after a long and laborious amount of time, the machine cannot be considered to have been designed to produce that particular thing. This is clearly erroneous.

That may be the case, but the inefficiency of such a machine could hardly be said to speak of any perfection in the design. Are you claiming that the universe is just an immense Rube Goldberg machine?

 

[ReapReason]

That may be the case, but the inefficiency of such a machine could hardly be said to speak of any perfection in the design. Are you claiming that the universe is just an immense Rube Goldberg machine?

What do you mean by perfect design? The perfection of any system is relative to the intentions of the creator.

If God wanted to created a naturally evolving universe, then the actuality of that universe is perfect in so far as it naturally evolves. It is perfectly fulfilling the will and intention of its creator.

This is not difficult.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, it was a simple observation - you are not addressing the questions I am asking or the arguments I am venturing. You are distorting my queries into the form of queries that might be made by someone who believes in supernatural entities.

It is customary to respond to the other person’s statements rather than go off at a tangent…

I have pointed out that the absurd demand for economy (in forms of existence) demonstrates that the richness of both spiritual and physical reality is beyond the comprehension of a person so totally immersed in earthly things that any other form of existence is inconceivable.

To claim that physical existence is the totality of existence, as I have now frequently pointed out, is only a diminishment if one assumes, as you appear to, that there actually is some other form of existence. To suppose that physical reality cannot encompass all the richness of life that we experience is - again, as I have frequently pointed out - quite premature, when we don’t actually know all there is to be known about physical reality.

You have given the game away! If we don’t know all there is to be known about physical reality there is no valid reason to suppose physical reality is the sole reality.

In other words both physical existence and supernatural existence are immensely valuable and they complement each other.

How can they, when there has never been any explanation forthcoming as to how supernatural and natural entities could ever interact or influence ssxpense of the other?

There has never been any explanation forthcoming as to how things exist! To demand to know how the mind functions is absurd. It is symptomatic of a materialistic mentality which is self-destructive. If the mind is explicable in terms of physical causes it cannot enlighten us in any way whatsoever.

Perhaps the utter inadequacy of attempts thus far to split reality into two species - we know physical entities exist, even though we don’t know everything about them; we don’t know that there is any such thing as supernatural reality. Can you point out the dividing line between the two?

There is no doubt whatsoever that the utter inadequacy of attempts to reduce the whole of reality to an immense conglomeration of atomic particles reveals the insanity of rejecting the very foundation of one’s own rational activity in favour of objects which haven’t the slightest awareness of - or insight into - what they are doing:

“Abandon all logic ye who enter into the entirely atomic system!”

Subjectivists believe nothing is intrinsically valuable! In your opinion a thing is not valuable for - or in - itself but only for the valuer.

A valuer whose existence is entirely physical.

A dogmatic assertion which overlooks the scientific fact that values do not exist in the physical world.

The question of value is fraught in any case - it’s not clear how something can be valuable unless it is valuable to something or someone. That issue might be solved by supposing there is a divine being to whom all things are valuable, but I’d still hesitate to say that this confers intrinsic value on anything.

That is not surprising if one considers values are illusions which do not correspond to physical reality.

A distortion of Christianity. Our physical existence is valuable in its own right and an essential element of human existence. We believe we are embodied persons who will be resurrected because our physical nature is an indispensable part of our identity. The view that we are ghosts in machines is not the teaching of Christ or the Church.

And yet somehow the rest of physical existence is to be valued only because it allows the physical aspect of humanity to flourish, right?

A further distortion of Christianity! The very fact that God created everything implies that everything is good.

Unless all physical entities have this duality, it’s hard to see how physical reality could be valuable purely for itself.

Even inanimate objects are valuable because they are often beautiful and awe-inspiring but primarily because they are the physical basis of life.

Why do you insist on dabbling in false dilemmas when it is abundantly clear that the Incarnation is irrefutable evidence that God values physical existence to such an extent that He is prepared to live among us and share our joys and sorrows? Your misguided attack applies to Platonism and Manichaeism but certainly not to orthodox Christianity…

Rather than risk having the thread shut down, I will simply point out that the Incarnation, as Christian doctrine holds it, is very, very far from being irrefutable evidence of anything supernatural.

The present issue is not the truth of the Incarnation - for which there is substantial evidence - but whether Christians regard physical existence as an unnecessary obstacle to spiritual development. Calvinism and Puritanism tend in that direction but the Catholic Church has always insisted on the need for enjoyment and beauty in art, music, sculpture, architecture and literature to inspire and uplift our hearts and minds to God and eternal truths. The teaching of Jesus is essentially positive and life-affirming in stark contrast to the Buddhist view that life is suffering and desires are the cause of suffering.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That may be the case, but the inefficiency of such a machine could hardly be said to speak of any perfection in the design. Are you claiming that the universe is just an immense Rube Goldberg machine?

By what standard do you judge the “machinery” of the universe to be inefficient?

The only seemingly (I stress the word “seemingly”) reasonable argument for inefficiency would be the human perception of time; an objection which is easily remedied by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Thanks to Einstein and the many scientists who have built upon his work, we now know that the passage of time has slowed remarkably since the beginning of the universe. So much so, in fact, that in its early stages, more than a billion years would pass in what, to our perception, would seem to be only a day. To quote my favorite scientist/theologian, former MIT professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder:

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What’s exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the “view of time” from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the “view of time” today. It’s not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number.** The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see it every million million seconds. Because that’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.**

So, as we see, time is not a uniform property of the universe. Even now there are places within it where, due to gravity or relative velocity or simple location, time is “passing” astronomically faster (or slower) than it is here.

Short of time, I don’t see where there’s much of an argument to be made for the inefficiency of the universe, and as we can easily refute that one, it would seem you’re left empty handed. This all ignores the glaring fact that neither you, nor anyone else, has the faintest idea of how to go about creating simple matter, much less a functional universe and even much less one that produces and sustains life, to begin with, which puts such criticism, for a mere mortal, beyond the pale.

 

[tonyrey]

By what standard do you judge the “machinery” of the universe to be inefficient?

The only seemingly (I stress the word “seemingly”) reasonable argument for inefficiency would be the human perception of time; an objection which is easily remedied by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Thanks to Einstein and the many scientists who have built upon his work, we now know that the passage of time has slowed remarkably since the beginning of the universe. So much so, in fact, that in its early stages, more than a billion years would pass in what, to our perception, would seem to be only a day. To quote my favorite scientist/theologian, former MIT professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder:

So, as we see, time is not a uniform property of the universe. Even now there are places within it where, due to gravity or relative velocity or simple location, time is “passing” astronomically faster (or slower) than it is here.

Short of time, I don’t see where there’s much of an argument to be made for the inefficiency of the universe, and as we can easily refute that one, it would seem you’re left empty handed. This all ignores the glaring fact that neither you, nor anyone else, has the faintest idea of how to go about creating simple matter, much less a functional universe and even much less one that produces and sustains life, to begin with, which puts such criticism, for a mere mortal, beyond the pale.

In any case human notions of economy are irrelevant. The fashionable demand for instant coffee, instant photos and instant results seems to have distorted some people’s attitude to reality. They will soon be complaining that natural processes are far too prolix. Let’s see to what extent everything could be speeded up… but then they would complain life is too short…

I don’t think we can do much about the size of the universe. Just think of how much space is wasted. I wonder what they consider to be the optimum age and size for a universe…

 

[greylorn]

Dr. Spitzer highlighted these 20 but makes it clear that there are numerous others. Perhaps #17 permittivity of free space is relational to permeability of free space so this constant (17) may account for, in some way, the omitted one.

I am not an astrophysicist so any more speculation on my part would be nonproductive.

It is the speed of light that is related to these “free space” parameters. The permittivity constant affects the propagation rate of electric fields, while the permeability constant does the same for magnetic fields. Light is an electromagnetic disturbance that propagates through “free” space in the form of alternating electric and magnetic fields, Therefore its speed is dependent upon both the permittivity and permeability constants of the space through which it propagates.

Obviously, the permittivity and permeability constants are more fundamental than light speed because light speed depends upon them. The formal mathematical relationship is a square root of an inverse, not likely to be interesting to most readers here, but can be found on Wikipedia.

These “constants” change as a function of the medium. They are different for glass and other transparent materials, slowing light-speed passing through such materials. That’s why lenses work.

I mention this because it leads me to believe that those who came up with these 20 constants, and Dr. Spitzer who quoted them, do not really understand physics. .

 

[Peter_Plato]

I mention this because it leads me to believe that those who came up with these 20 constants, and Dr. Spitzer who quoted them, do not really understand physics. .

I am not sure what your point is here. A constant was left out, but the list was not claimed to be an exhaustive one. Are you making a claim that the actual constants on the list ought not be there, that leaving out one from a partial list shows incompetence, or are you merely casting aspersions?

Dr. Robert Spitzer is a highly trained philosopher with numerous degrees and academic credentials. He served as president of Gonzaga University for a number of years with a stellar reputation in administration and research. The list of twenty constants I compiled from his book, where each is carefully detailed and explained. He may not be a specialist in the field but his research and references are fully supportive of the data.

Just to be clear Dr. Hugh Ross (quoted in post 624) IS an astrophysicist and compiled the list of 34 constants carefully explaining the results of higher or lower values.

So my point remains that seeing fine tuning as akin to winning the lottery is a false analogy.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not sure what your point is here. A constant was left out, but the list was not claimed to be an exhaustive one. Are you making a claim that the actual constants on the list ought not be there, that leaving out one from a partial list shows incompetence, or are you merely casting aspersions?

Dr. Robert Spitzer is a highly trained philosopher with numerous degrees and academic credentials. He served as president of Gonzaga University for a number of years with a stellar reputation in administration and research. The list of twenty constants I compiled from his book, where each is carefully detailed and explained. He may not be a specialist in the field but his research and references are fully supportive of the data.

Just to be clear Dr. Hugh Ross (quoted in post 624) IS an astrophysicist and compiled the list of 34 constants carefully explaining the results of higher or lower values.

So my point remains that seeing fine tuning as akin to winning the lottery is a false analogy.

It is far easier to cast doubt on a man’s ability than refute his conclusions!

 

[greylorn]

I am not sure what your point is here. A constant was left out, but the list was not claimed to be an exhaustive one. Are you making a claim that the actual constants on the list ought not be there, that leaving out one from a partial list shows incompetence, or are you merely casting aspersions?

Dr. Robert Spitzer is a highly trained philosopher with numerous degrees and academic credentials. He served as president of Gonzaga University for a number of years with a stellar reputation in administration and research. The list of twenty constants I compiled from his book, where each is carefully detailed and explained. He may not be a specialist in the field but his research and references are fully supportive of the data.

Just to be clear Dr. Hugh Ross (quoted in post 624) IS an astrophysicist and compiled the list of 34 constants carefully explaining the results of higher or lower values.

So my point remains that seeing fine tuning as akin to winning the lottery is a false analogy.

I agree with your point. No problem there.

Mine was that if those who selected the 20 constants actually understood physics, the speed of light would not have been included, simply because it is a function of two more fundamental constants.

I’m glad that Spitzer has a wall full of degrees. My observations suggest that the more degrees one flaunts, the less capable he is of thinking clearly about fundamental issues.

Degrees are great for complex issues, but by the time one has acquired a few of them, the brain becomes clogged with data, opinions, and belief in the quality of the knowledge that one holds. The mind then tends to approach all problems from its vast knowledge base, trying to put as much of that knowledge as possible into its solution.

A large knowledge base is often essential for solving complex problems, but it usually gets in the way of finding simple solutions. That is why most scientific breakthroughs are developed by young people.

Wise philosophers have noted this. Thomas Kuhn, for example, pointed out that radical new ideas are never accepted into the general scientific paradigm until the old professors die off. This is simply human nature. When one has invested a lot of time and money into acquiring knowledge, it becomes a possession, and like other possessions, the owner is loathe to relegate it to a trash can, no matter how many maggots and vermin are dining within. .

 

[Sair]

In any case human notions of economy are irrelevant. The fashionable demand for instant coffee, instant photos and instant results seems to have distorted some people’s attitude to reality. They will soon be complaining that natural processes are far too prolix. Let’s see to what extent everything could be speeded up… but then they would complain life is too short…

I don’t think we can do much about the size of the universe. Just think of how much space is wasted. I wonder what they consider to be the optimum age and size for a universe…

Well, thank you for finally acceding to the point! Yes, from the point of view of intelligent designers, such as ourselves, the universe is inefficient, if its ultimate purpose was indeed to give rise to us. I don’t believe the universe was created with any such intention, if it was created by any intelligent entity at all. I don’t see it as inefficient, but believers in intelligent design must, if they are to be consistent.

I noticed that in your previous post, also, you mentioned that inanimate natural objects are valuable because they are beautiful (presumably from the point of view of conscious observers), and because they consist of elements that may give rise to life - therefore not valuable in and of themselves.

Please acknowledge that you are indeed claiming that humans are the ultimate end of your God’s creation, and that if this is indeed the case, the universe is a highly inefficient mechanism for bringing us about. Are you claiming that your God could not have done differently? Or that he had reasons for creating in such a slow, laborious, roundabout fashion? If the latter, what were these reasons?

 

[tonyrey]

In any case human notions of economy are irrelevant. The fashionable demand for instant coffee, instant photos and instant results seems to have distorted some people’s attitude to reality. They will soon be complaining that natural processes are far too prolix. Let’s see to what extent everything could be speeded up… but then they would complain life is too short…

You have failed to detect the irony!

Yes, from the point of view of intelligent designers, such as ourselves, the universe is inefficient, if its ultimate purpose was indeed to give rise to us.
I don’t believe the universe was created with any such intention, if it was created by any intelligent entity at all. I don’t see it as inefficient, but believers in intelligent design must, if they are to be consistent.

A distortion of Christianity which fails to take into account the words of Jesus about the beauty of the lilies and God’s concern for the sparrows.

I noticed that in your previous post, also, you mentioned that inanimate natural objects are valuable because they are beautiful (presumably from the point of view of conscious observers), and because they consist of elements that may give rise to life - therefore not valuable in and of themselves.

Please acknowledge that you are indeed claiming that humans are the ultimate end of your God’s creation, and that if this is indeed the case, the universe is a highly inefficient mechanism for bringing us about.

A false deduction. Only a presumptuous person claims to know God’s ultimate purposes.

Are you claiming that your God could not have done differently?

Since I have not made any claim to that effect the question is pointless.

Or that he had reasons for creating in such a slow, laborious, roundabout fashion? If the latter, what were these reasons?

I have already pointed out that human notions of economy are irrelevant to the creation of a universe. The fashionable demand for instant coffee, instant photos and instant results has definitely distorted some people’s attitude to reality. They are already complaining that natural processes are far too long-winded!

What do you consider the optimum rate of development within the universe? On what basis have you reached that conclusion?