Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Heddle's Half-Dissent

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,06:52    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 19 2006,11:32) Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me the fine tuning argument falls apart pretty quickly. The only way we can observe this universe to be fine tuned to produce us is because if it was just slightly different we wouldn't be around to observe it. i.e.: Any universe producing intelligent life would, by definition, be "fine tuned" to produce that particular life form.  If it were different either no life would be around to observe it or the life forms it produced would be different than we are. True? Edit:  After reading this it didn't seem clear.  I am really asking why this argument is illogical--obviously brighter minds with lots of letters after their names see this as a huge issue.  I'm just not seeing the why. Seems clear to me, Ms or Mr Facts, and I agree with you.   If intelligent life exists in the universe, what's the probability that intelligent life is possible in the universe? If intelligent life is impossible in the universe, what's the probability of intelligent life existing to observe the universe? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

heddle Posts: 126 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,06:56    Jim_Wynee   Quote This is exactly where Heddle and rationality part company. It is not "perfectly reasonable" to invoke a god as a catch-all for anything that we don't understand. How many times must this be proven? No, it is perfectly reasonable to invoke God for questions outside the domain of science. You may wish to invoke purely secular philosophy or to ignore such questions, but I think most people would agree that such questions are in the domain of religion. So suppose the constants are determined from a theory. And suppose someone asks you why do think the theory just happened to produce the values in the life-supporting range. How would you answer? And why would it be irrational to invoke God in answering this non-scientific question? Ogee, I’m too bored to comment beyond one observation: do not invoke the fallacy of “appeal to authority” unless you know what it means. It is not: “look what an expert says.” That is a perfectly reasonable approach and in fact is one of the reasons why we have experts. The fallacy demands an additional unsupportable step, e.g.: “Susskind is smart, this it what he says, I agree, and since he,being Susskind is right therefore I am right too.” I am not saying that, I am merely pointing out what he wrote was relevant for this discussion and for your consideration. That is not a logical fallacy. It may be a false dilemma. In fact, one possibility that Susskind did omit was “blind luck.” That is certainly a possible explanation for the fine tuning. Perhaps there are more, but even there the onus is on you to provide the missing alternatives, not just assert that surely they exist. ScaryFacts, False. The argument is not that the universe is fine tuned for life as we know it, but life at all, under the very modest assumptions that any complex life requires galaxies and stars and elements beyond helium. If it is remarkable that our universe contains these bare minimum requirements for life, then the fine tuning is non-trivial, which is exactly why people view it as a serious problem. Now if there are multiple universes, then you are correct—it is obvious that ours would appear fine tuned for life. SteveS Perhaps I would have an new cosmological ID in that case, but it would not be the one I champion now. That one would be dead. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Ogee Posts: 89 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,06:56    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 19 2006,11:32) What you describe is a form of the weak anthropic principle: we should not be surprised to find ourselves in conditions amenable to our existence.   The WAP does not in itself do away with the fine-tuning problem, which concerns just how narrow a range of conditions is amenable to any sort of life at all, and how those conditions came to exist not just here, but anywhere.  The issue here is the extent to which it's reasonable to answer that "how" with "God did it".

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,07:00    I'll throw another two cents in the pot: besides having (depending on who you're reading at the time) qualities that verge on or are fallacies, the fine-tuning argument has the problem of not knowing what parameters are required for "life" or even an agreed-upon definition of life. Here's one I've used at times: " living systems may be defined as open systems maintained in steady-states, far-from-equilibrium, due to matter-energy flows in which informationally-rich autocatalytic cycles extract energy, build complex internal structures, allowing growth even as they create greater entropy in their environments." I'm sure lots of people would disagree with that one, given that I didn't specify " information needed to construct the next generation of organisms is stabilized in nucleic acids." Besides, it's jargon-ridden and blah. I think the question of fine-tuning is interesting, too, but I'm content to say I simply don't know. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,07:15    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 19 2006,12:52) Ms or Mr Facts (Scary gets up, farts, belches, chugs his beer, adjusts his package and responds...) They call me MISTER Facts. Gee, I’ve got to testosterone up my posting style. Thanks for the explanations.  Let’s see if I get this right…if the number of universes approaches infinity then the probability of one of those universes having the particular configuration for the development of life would approach 1. If there is a single universe the probability would be almost zero. But we know there are multiple universes—remember that Star Trek where there was a parallel universe and Spock had a goatee?  I’m pretty sure that settles it.

Ogee Posts: 89 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,07:26    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,11:56) I’m too bored to comment beyond one observation: do not invoke the fallacy of “appeal to authority” unless you know what it means. Oh, don't worry, Dave, I know exactly what it means, and anyone who has discussed these matters with you (or read the discussions) will be well aware of the frequency and manner in which you invoke Susskind. Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,11:56) It may be a false dilemma. In fact, one possibility that Susskind did omit was “blind luck.” Your admission of a third possibility renders the issue moot, but to be fair to Susskind, he never explicitly stated the "multiverses or ID" false dilemma:   Quote Q:  If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design? Susskind: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape 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.

Ogee Posts: 89 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,07:47    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 19 2006,12:15) Thanks for the explanations.  Let’s see if I get this right…if the number of universes approaches infinity then the probability of one of those universes having the particular configuration for the development of life would approach 1. If there is a single universe the probability would be almost zero. That's basically correct, but no one knows what range of values are possible for these parameters, nor what their distributions might be.  Attempting to assign a priori probabilities to such things is dodgy, to say the least.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,08:52    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,11:56) Jim_Wynee       Quote This is exactly where Heddle and rationality part company. It is not "perfectly reasonable" to invoke a god as a catch-all for anything that we don't understand. How many times must this be proven? No, it is perfectly reasonable to invoke God for questions outside the domain of science. You may wish to invoke purely secular philosophy or to ignore such questions, but I think most people would agree that such questions are in the domain of religion. Shorter Heddle: Many people are irrational, so what they think must be rational.   Quote So suppose the constants are determined from a theory. And suppose someone asks you why do think the theory just happened to produce the values in the life-supporting range. How would you answer? "I don't know, but we're working on it"?   Quote And why would it be irrational to invoke God in answering this non-scientific question? It wouldn't be, so long as you agree that invoking the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't irrational either. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,09:26    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,10:10) Ogee, Nope. Suppose, after painstaking theoretical analysis from the best theoretical physicists, it was determined that some constant S had to be within .001% of its measured value for life to be possible. The cosmological ID argument is: if there is just one universe, then it's amazing that the actual value falls in that range. So, any value that is within .001% would make life possible?  So, a value that is .0005% off of the current value would be OK?  A value that is .0005000001 would also be OK?  Gee, that sort of leaves us an infinite amount of values to choose from.  That doesn't sound like it's too selective to me. Quote Note: it says nothing about the source of that value, be it a possibly from a low probability random draw or of unit probability resulting from a fundamental theory. As I have said elsewhere, the fundamental theory that predicts the value of the constants doesn't make it any less remarkable that they fall in the lucky range—in fact it is a more elegant design argument. Weren't you just bashing Dembski for the same thing? Quote You are also wrong about multiple universes not falsifying [not used in a rigorous sense] cosmological ID as I argue for it. If you detect another universe, I would immediately have to stop arguing that the fine tuning of our universe is evidence for design. Clearly the better explanation is that  we just, quite naturally, arose in one of the fertile universes and so we expect ours to look fine tuned. That would be a slam-dunk rebuttal of cosmological ID. Apart from the fact that you have trouble with the meaning of the word "falsify" weren't you just arguing on your blog that the designer could be an alien from another universe?

heddle Posts: 126 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,11:35    GCT,       Quote So, any value that is within .001% would make life possible?  So, a value that is .0005% off of the current value would be OK?  A value that is .0005000001 would also be OK?  Gee, that sort of leaves us an infinite amount of values to choose from.  That doesn't sound like it's too selective to me. Are you really making that argument? I certainly hope you are joking. If I said that a constant had to be within 1 part in 10^100 of its measured value, would you really argue that "that's not so selective because an infinite number of values could fit in that range.¨  Is that really what you are saying? If so I can hardly believe it.       Quote Weren't you just bashing Dembski for the same thing? Nope. In either case I say the designer is God. It's just a question of whether he picked the right constants or imposed the fundamental law that produced the constants. What I bashed the IDers for was some combination of  a) calling it science when it isn't b) not doing any science given that you claim it is c) hiding behind the argument that the designer doesn't have to be God--which is hiding behind a technicality and d) using unsavory methods for getting ID into the public schools. And maybe some other things that I don't recall at the moment. Yes I was saying the designer could be an alien from another universe--that just a special case of saying fine tuning could be explained by multiple universes. Short of the alien announcing himself, it would be the worst possible explanation, because why invoke an alien (or God) when you can just let the large sample size of universes explain why some are fine tuned. In any case, cosmological ID as I preach it is dead. As I'll describe it (for the gazillionth time) fine tuning + one universe --> God designed the universe. Multiple universes negates that argument, and if you find an alien who designed the universe, it would negate it even more brutally. I think you are confused by the different approaches. Biological ID says: the flagellum looks designed so that someone designed it, God or a super alien. Cosmological ID (as I preach it) says: God designed the universe. Jim_Wynne As I expected, you are actually begging the question. Your argument is really that any invoking of God is irrational-- it really has nothing to do the specifics of our discussion. BTW "But we are working on it¨ is an irrational answer. The question was based on the premise that a theory of everything predicted the constants. There is no physics left to do--but we are left with the metaphysical question why the constants are in the necessary range. The problem cannot be "worked on"¨ in the sense of physics. So exactly how would you be working on it? Ogee, I will check Susskind's book. I can't recall if he states it more explicitly that in that interview you quoted. However, the quote you provided is good enough. He is merely saying if the landscape fails then of course scientists will look for a different answer --but it will be very hard to answer the ID critics. Futrhermore, he describes such a search for a unique String theory solution as as faith based as ID. There may be an little bit of wiggle room in that quote, but not much. EDITED some typos -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:24    While the discussion on cosmological ID is keeping me on the dge of my seat, I am far more interested in this secret ID list serv you wrote about on your blog, Heddle. I realize you were sworn to secrecy when you joined that list but can you shed any more light on it (without breaking your "pledge")?   Like what is the purpose, why the secrecy, and do they really require a "pleadge" of some sort?   And BTW, my hat's off to you for standing up for what is right and standing up to people who do not like anyone standing up to them.  Dembski seems to be drunken with power and he's obviously trigger happy happy when it comes to open discussion. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:33    Hey Heddle, what do you think about my objection to the Ikeda-Jeffries Theorem?   Quote Our main theorem Having understood the previous discussion, and with our notation in hand, it is now easy to prove that the WAP does not support supernaturalism (which we take to be the negation ~N of N). Recall that the WAP can be written as P(F|N&L)=1. Then, by Bayes' theorem [see footnote 2] we have P(N|F&L) =  P(F|N&L)P(N|L)/P(F|L)         =  P(N|L)/P(F|L)         >= P(N|L) I think that they're using Bayes' theorem inconsistently because they don't include the fine-tuning portion of the WAP in P(F/N&L) even though it's observed, but are then smuggling in fine tuning by letting P(N/F&L) ->0 after the cancellation. This equivocates the definition of F in my opinion. See here for more detail. If you don't like my approach, how would you respond? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:46    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 19 2006,18:24) Dembski seems to be drunken with power and he's obviously trigger happy happy when it comes to open discussion. I'm drunk on power. No wait. That's whiskey.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:58    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2006,17:46) Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 19 2006,18:24) Dembski seems to be drunken with power and he's obviously trigger happy happy when it comes to open discussion. I'm drunk on power. No wait. That's whiskey. Just keep your finger off the trigger and we'll all get along nicely.... And pass the whiskey you ####, dirty darwinist. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,13:21    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,16:35) As I'll describe it (for the gazillionth time) fine tuning + one universe --> God designed the universe. That is not a reasonable (i.e. based on reason) or rational argument. I'm willing to accept that fine tuning is an observation in need of explanation. Your argument would be reasonable if there were only two possible explanations: multiple universes, or God did it. Unfortunately, there is one more explanation: "something else caused it." Just because we can't currently imagine what that something might be doesn't mean we can reasonably reject it and conclude God did it. Of course, it's your perogative to reach that conclusion if you wish, but it's not a reasoned conclusion.

Ogee Posts: 89 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,16:11    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,17:33) I think that they're using Bayes' theorem inconsistently because they don't include the fine-tuning portion of the WAP in P(F/N&L) even though it's observed, but are then smuggling in fine tuning by letting P(N/F&L) ->0 after the cancellation. This equivocates the definition of F in my opinion. As has been clarified (twice now) in the other thread, this is not an equivocation on their part but a misunderstanding on yours .  F is always "The universe is life-Friendly", never "The universe is fine-tuned".  And where are they saying P(N|F&L) ->0 ? They are clearly stating that P(N|F&L) cannot be less than P(N|L).  I strongly suggest re-reading it for comprehension before any further embarassing attempts at rebuttals.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,04:15    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,16:35) Jim_Wynne As I expected, you are actually begging the question. Your argument is really that any invoking of God is irrational-- it really has nothing to do the specifics of our discussion. BTW "But we are working on it¨ is an irrational answer. The question was based on the premise that a theory of everything predicted the constants. There is no physics left to do--but we are left with the metaphysical question why the constants are in the necessary range. The problem cannot be "worked on"¨ in the sense of physics. So exactly how would you be working on it? At about this point in any discussion with Heddle, it can be mildly entertaining to go back through the posts and count his uses of logical fallacies and his denials of invoking them.  At a glance, so far I can see the time-honored argument from personal incredulity (without which Heddle would be stuck in church), appeals to authority (Heddle: "You don't know what 'appeal to authority' means.") and now the obligatory false dilemma. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,05:27    Quote Some of you are ignoring a point that I have made ad nasueum and which, in these circles, is mostly ignored. However, since one of your own (Stephen Elliott) made it, I thought it might be taken more seriously. And who has ignored the fine-tuning problem?  I realize that some have, but the history on PT is generally people agreeing that why the universe "appears to be fine-tuned" remains a problem, while disagreeing with Heddle's pet "reason" for it.       Quote That is: virtually the entire professional physics community agrees that there is a substantive fine tuning problem. You can call that an appeal to authority if you like (it’s actually not), but when there is nearly universal acknowledgement from experts one ought to at least take notice. For example, cosmologist (and non IDer) Leonard Susskind has explicitly stated that, because of fine tuning, it's either multiple universes or  it's ID. And this is exactly what is wrong with these discussions.  The moment "fine-tuning" is acknowledged, Heddle's off talking about the severely limited choices that he considers, never mind the endless metaphysical possibilities that could be conjured up.     Quote So you can dismiss it with the puddle analogy, but I really don't know how a thinking person can. I know I'm late to this discussion, but it was this that made me decide to jump in now.  Heddle doesn't seem to recognize what the puddle analogy is getting at.   It isn't that there is no specific set of reasons that the puddle is shaped as it is.  It's that the water in the depression is amazed at its fit within the depression, and supposes that the depression is shaped to fit it.  The water is sure that the shape is purposefully shaped for its own shape, not realizing it simply fits what is there. So go ahead and ask why the puddle is shaped as it is.  We do that in cosmology and in biology.  However there is no reason in the first place to suppose that the current forms of matter, including life, are the reason the universe is as it is, anymore than that lifeless universes (should these exist) are specifically designed not to produce life. Maybe more to the point, was this universe configured so that so much of the universe would be unsupportive of life?  Or might we ask, does the universe support life as much as it does simply in order to wipe it out with various disasters?  That is to say, do the gods create us so that they may kill us for their sport? There are a lot of things that fit in our universe, including life-destroying asteroids and supervolcanoes, diseases, tyrants and genocidists.  The supposition that  life is the purpose of our universe, and not the death-dealing supernovae and assorted geological catastrophes, seems to be a peculiarly anthropocentric point of view. So again, ask away why the universe is as it is.  Just don't go privileging life's existence as an especial fit to the universe when one of the most obvious aspects of this universe is its utter indifference to our existence and our extinction.     Quote A thinking person should at least ask himself: if all the experts take it seriously, maybe it really is something that can't be dismissed so trivially. Maybe I should look into it a bit. Here is the problem once again.  Heddle will tell us that he's doing apologetics and/or coming up with an explanation outside of science.  But never mind that many of us know about the "fine-tuning problem" and thus should be known to have looked into it at least to some extent and found that there are no satisfactory answers, he suggests that we ought to look into it a bit.   Why?  Is it because we might find a good answer?  Or just because it is a gap in knowledge that many want desperately to fill with God, despite having no evidence of a connection ("causal" or otherwise) between fine-tuning and God? The experts do take fine-tuning seriously, and they try to find evidence-based answers to it.  There isn't any especial reason for most people to "look into it" any more than they ought to be looking into the problems existing between quantum gravity and relativistic gravity.  People raise the former issue primarily in order to suggest that "god did it" without any sort of evidence of how and why an unevidenced God might have made this particular puddle. So far as we know, puddles are shaped as they are through physical interactions.  Any serious answer as to why the puddle we call our universe is as it is will almost certainly also have a physical explanation.   Presumably it is because Heddle doesn't propose a serious physical explanation for a serious physical question that his invitation to speak at a physics conference was withdrawn. Glen D -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,06:22    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,16:35) GCT,         Quote So, any value that is within .001% would make life possible?  So, a value that is .0005% off of the current value would be OK?  A value that is .0005000001 would also be OK?  Gee, that sort of leaves us an infinite amount of values to choose from.  That doesn't sound like it's too selective to me. Are you really making that argument? I certainly hope you are joking. If I said that a constant had to be within 1 part in 10^100 of its measured value, would you really argue that "that's not so selective because an infinite number of values could fit in that range.¨  Is that really what you are saying? If so I can hardly believe it. That's part of the argument.  The other part is that neither you nor I know the restraints of the value at all.  Making a probabilistic argument when you know jack is what is a joke.  One could say that a value of some constant can range between 1 and 100, but it has to be between 1 and 1.00000001 in order to allow life, and that makes it sound like life is rather unlikely.  There are, however, infinite values still allowed in infinite universes where life would be allowed.  To make it even worse, we don't know whether the value is really between 1 and 100 or whether there are limits to the values at all.  Your argument is worthless. Quote         Quote Weren't you just bashing Dembski for the same thing? Nope. In either case I say the designer is God. It's just a question of whether he picked the right constants or imposed the fundamental law that produced the constants. What I bashed the IDers for was some combination of  a) calling it science when it isn't b) not doing any science given that you claim it is c) hiding behind the argument that the designer doesn't have to be God--which is hiding behind a technicality and d) using unsavory methods for getting ID into the public schools. And maybe some other things that I don't recall at the moment. Right, but when you say that the best inference is to Cosmo ID, and that Cosmo ID says nothing about the source of the fine tuning...well, it's basically what Dembski is saying. Quote Yes I was saying the designer could be an alien from another universe--that just a special case of saying fine tuning could be explained by multiple universes. Short of the alien announcing himself, it would be the worst possible explanation, because why invoke an alien (or God) when you can just let the large sample size of universes explain why some are fine tuned. In any case, cosmological ID as I preach it is dead. As I'll describe it (for the gazillionth time) fine tuning + one universe --> God designed the universe. Multiple universes negates that argument, and if you find an alien who designed the universe, it would negate it even more brutally. DH:  Yes, Cosmo ID demands one universe, but it could also be an alien from another universe that did it and Cosmo ID explains that too, and no I don't see the contradiction in that. Quote I think you are confused by the different approaches. Biological ID says: the flagellum looks designed so that someone designed it, God or a super alien. Cosmological ID (as I preach it) says: God designed the universe. Then, why hide behind such things as, "It's the best inference we have based on the evidence."  What you really mean to say is, "I believe in god, therefore I believe god designed the universe."  By shrouding everything in a scientific veneer, you try to give credence to your beliefs, and end up doing the same as Dembski.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,09:21    Quote     Quote That is: virtually the entire professional physics community agrees that there is a substantive fine tuning problem. You can call that an appeal to authority if you like (it’s actually not), but when there is nearly universal acknowledgement from experts one ought to at least take notice. For example, cosmologist (and non IDer) Leonard Susskind has explicitly stated that, because of fine tuning, it's either multiple universes or  it's ID. And this is exactly what is wrong with these discussions.  The moment "fine-tuning" is acknowledged, Heddle's off talking about the severely limited choices that he considers, never mind the endless metaphysical possibilities that could be conjured up. Precisely. Thank you. That's exactly something that's always bothered me about all discussion of 'fine tuning', yet I hadn't been able to articulate. It's like designing a joke to fit a pre-existing punchline you've always wanted to use. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,09:33    Heddle, I've attempted to clarify my explanation in LUCA. This won't make the slightest difference with the academic stingrays lurking on this site, but it might aid the lurkers confused by my ineptitude. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,09:59    Hey Dave Heddle, your ID friends are as good at physics, as they are at biology.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,10:11    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,12:56) Now if there are multiple universes, then you are correct—it is obvious that ours would appear fine tuned for life. Just to clarify - it should be "if there are or have ever been multiple universes".  There is no need for them to exist simultaneously in this case. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,13:55    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,04:58) virtually the entire professional physics community agrees that there is a substantive fine tuning problem. And virtually all of them think "cosmological ID" is a load of horse hockey. So what? Science doesn't crae about your religious opinions, Heddle.  After all, they are no more authoritative than anyone ELSE's religious opinions. So go preach your religious opinions in church, where they belong, and stop pestering science with them.  Science simply doesn't give a flying fig about your religious opinions. Sorry if you don't like that.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,14:04    Hey Heddle, given your assertion that if cosmological constants were different, we wouldn't be here, and given the fact that we, um, are here, what's so surprising about the fact that circumstances allowed us to be here?  If green jelly beans exist, would it surprise you to learn that conditions are such as would allow green jelly beans to exist?  How the #### else COULD they be? Another question: If there were some other set of constants and therefore we were NOT here, would THOSE particular set of constants be evidence for a designer?  Why would the probability of THAT specific set of constants be any different from the probability of THIS specific set of constants?  What would make one set of constants "designed" and the other "not designed".   Other than your religious opinion that God created us. . . . . (which is, of course, all that your 'cosmological ID' crapola boils down to anyway)? Something else I'm curious about, Heddle ---- since well over 85% of the people in the US believe in God, what's the use of your preaching to all and sundry that God exists?  Don't they, um, already believe that? Or are you trying (quite unsuccessfully, it appears) to convert the remaining 15% . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,14:10    Another question for you, Heddle:  Suppose physics produces a scientific theory that explains why all of the observed universal constants are as they are, and demonstrates that, by the laws of physics, they could not be anything else.   What happens to your God then?  What gap do you plan on cramming him into then? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,14:43    He's already explained that somewhere in the past. If a law was discovered which did the tuning, then god must have tuned that law. Gap[n] -> Gap[n+1] It's called apologetics, because you oughta apologize for it.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,15:11    Lenny, I usually find your anger annoying, but I did have a good laugh at this bit of yours on PT: Quote (2) all of the people who are popping in now, looking for ways to beat the IDers, are too late. ID is already dead. It was shot in the knees in Kansas, shot in the head at Dover, and its coffin lid was nailed on in Ohio. I'm referring to this as The Long Twilight of Intelligent Design. ID supporters will while out their days making silly comments on blogs. People will stop paying attention. Thousands of papers a month will continue to elucidate the mysterious things nature's gotten up to in the last 4 billion years.

heddle Posts: 126 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,16:05    Well... I am indebted to Lenny. I was starting to spend too much time here. The discussions started out fine, but he reminded me that, utimately, they are not elevated beyond the level of the PT comments. It took a while to break that addiction, but I've been "sober" for  couple months. No point trading one bad habit for another--especially one no different from the first. Have fun y'all. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,16:21    Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,11:56) No, it is perfectly reasonable to invoke God for questions outside the domain of science. You may wish to invoke purely secular philosophy or to ignore such questions, but I think most people would agree that such questions are in the domain of religion. So suppose the constants are determined from a theory. And suppose someone asks you why do think the theory just happened to produce the values in the life-supporting range. How would you answer? And why would it be irrational to invoke God in answering this non-scientific question? That's right! God cut off his father's balls and now he's the freakin king. Why can't you all just get it throiugh your thick skulls. Tequila, since you asked. Whoopee! -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard