Intelligent design (evidence)

This is exactly the kind of argument that adds nothing to the discussion.
Debate the subject instead of throwing labels around.
I can see why you're uncomfortable discussing this but, if one is promoting intelligent design, it is fair to ponder the source of the intelligence. At least religious folk are honest and up front about this.

However, there is a certain coyness from proponents on this issue that, at the very least, causes confusion in some and, given ID's history, suspicion in others.
 
Last edited:
No it is not, the way you put it has a few unstated premises:

One is that the ultimate goal of the universe is to be what it is right now, why else would we need fine tuning if it does not have a goal?
For most who use the FTU argument this even goes a step further, they make the argument under the assumption that the universe's only goal is to give rise to us.

The other one is that the universe is tunable, we can not know that is true.
.
Again, no it is not, it is a fine piece of question begging. Saying there is fine tuning, is exactly the same as saying there is a fine tuner.
Making the FTU argument follows from the faith in a fine tuner. As said before, it therefore can not be evidence for the existence of a fine tuner.

A fine tuner is an answer to a question that need not to be asked.
The universe seems to have produced only things that are possible within the constraints of the laws of physics. No surprise, but that is all we can say.

The flag points north because the wind blows north, not the other way round.
Let's see, what's that word we use when someone is feeding a load of hewey? Balderdash!

The laws of physics are indeed fine tuned for life. The strong force and Colombia constant are balanced just right so that 100 elements in the periodic table are available. It would be so easy for this to all go wrong and biochemistry wouldn't work.

If there are so many ways to screw up the fine tuning, then obviously the physics constants can be different then what they are.
 
Last edited:
The laws of physics are indeed fine tuned for life.
No they are not, life evolved within the constraints of the laws of physics. You are confusing cause and effect.
The strong force and Colombia constant are balanced just right so that 100 elements in the periodic table are available. It would be so easy for this to all go wrong and biochemistry wouldn't work.
Right, but all of that is equally explained by saying that life evolved within the contstraints of the laws of physics. It is the explanation that respects the sequence of cause and effect. It is obviously the most parsimonious one.

To invoke fine tuning we have to pile up assumption on assumption to make it work. First we have to assume that the universe's goal is to have life in it, we have to assume that there is a fine tuner, we have to assume that the universe is tunable, we have to assume that there is a completely different reality from where our reality has been created.

the more you think of it, the more assumptions we have to make.

Now, I do understand that you have already made all these assumptions for yourself, but please try to understand that none of these assumptions can be held on a scientific basis.

If there are so many ways to screw up the fine tuning, then obviously the physics constants can be different then what they are.
We cannot be sure about that based on what we know today.
 
Where did the laws of physics come from? Why are they fine tuned for life? The only assumption I require is the existence of an Intelligent Designer that has always existed.

If the mass of the weak force boson is changed, it is very easy for nuclei to become less stable. Yet you are telling me that the laws of physics fine tuned them just perfectly for life. How is that scientific? How is that possible
 
Last edited:
Is that your starting point or your conclusion?
I just found out about the fine Tuned universe. Prior to that, I never thought that God existed. But this universe is fine 4 uneducated and there is no evidence of another universe, let alone an infinite number of universes. If you look at probabilities, there is a 50-50 chance of God or nature creating the universe. But science also can't explain consciousness, consciousness cannot be explained as a phenomena of nature. So God, as the Holy Ghost is the more reasonable choice.
 
I just found out about the fine Tuned universe. Prior to that, I never thought that God existed. But this universe is fine 4 uneducated and there is no evidence of another universe, let alone an infinite number of universes. If you look at probabilities, there is a 50-50 chance of God or nature creating the universe. But science also can't explain consciousness, consciousness cannot be explained as a phenomena of nature. So God, as the Holy Ghost is the more reasonable choice.

You have a whole bunch of ideas mixed up in there.

As I understand it there is some evidence of multi-words, or bang crunch in that some physics might suggest it - none-of it in any way confirmed, of course, but people seem to have the impression they are just the result of brain-storms. As I understand it they come out of the math.

I don't think your probability analysis is at all correct. Not the least being that it doesn't include the option of the universe never having been created at all.

Scientists are working on explaining consciousness.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that consciousness can't be explained as natural.

Even if you get to some sort of deity as the a more reasonable choice, you've got a lot more steps to get to the "Holy Ghost" version!
 
There is no evidence of any other universes, not one scrap. The bouncing universe theory was disproved.

There is nothing in the natural world that can be used to construct a consciousness from the subjective point of view.

As for the nature of the Intelligent Designer, we can only speculate. However, the Christian God is the best defense against the insanity of rational materialism.
 
There is no evidence of any other universes, not one scrap. The bouncing universe theory was disproved.

From what I've seen there are various different versions floating about, none-of which are victorious at the present time. Maybe Ethan could clarify. In any event, certainly none of them are rated any higher than possibilities at the current time. It doesn't really matter really, since it's not relevant to this discussion.

There is nothing in the natural world that can be used to construct a consciousness from the subjective point of view.

So some people believe.

However, the Christian God is the best defense against the insanity of rational materialism.

Not sure what that even means. The Christian god is a pretty nasty character - but that's a whole 'nother discussion!
 
Rational materialists are trying to explain the fine tuning of this universe as a case of the anthropic principle, that in a population of an infinite number of universes, one of them might be fine tuned. But I called that Balderdash because there is no evidence of even a second universe.

People believe consciousness can't be duplicated because nobody has even the first inkling of how to do it.
 
Rational materialists are trying to explain the fine tuning of this universe as a case of the anthropic principle, that in a population of an infinite number of universes, one of them might be fine tuned. But I called that Balderdash because there is no evidence of even a second universe.

Not quite. You're mixing up different contexts.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it should be considered settled that we live in a multiverse. I think most people recognise it as a possibility that is far from determined at this point.

The possibilities of the mulitiverse or a bang/crunch verse play a different role in the context of the fine tuned universe argument as proof of a deity. The FTU argument depends on this universe being the only one, or only version of one in order to logically lead to a designer deity. Given that we currently don't know if that's the case (and may never know) it fails as a logical argument.

The best you can do is add the premises: IF this is the only universe, and IF no other configuration of a universe could support life, and if this only universe has one go at it then it seems likely that it was created consciously by a designer.

People believe consciousness can't be duplicated because nobody has even the first inkling of how to do it.

Well, a lot of people are working on it, and making interesting progress.
 
actually God could have created a multiverse but since we are dealing with facts on the groundwe only know of this universe so we have to use this universe as the only known universe and that is fine tuned and therefore must have been created by God
 
Because of the law of conservation of information (LCI), evolution requires an input of information.

LCI states that a search that is superior to a blind search requires the input of information.
The origin of life and evolution of species involved some process other than blind search (chance) because they are too improbable to have occured by chance. Natural selection is thought to be the alternative to chance. Nevertheless, natural selection as an alternative search cannot violate LCI therefore if mutation, recombination, and selection is the process responsible for evolution, there must also be an input of information. This is evidence of intelligent design.

http://www.evoinfo.org/papers/ConsInfo_NoN.pdf
LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW
Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information
William A. Dembski a nd Robert J. Marks II
...
Laws of nature are universal in scope, hold with unfailing regularity, and
receive support from a wide array of facts and observations. The Law of
Conservation of Information (LCI) is such a law. LCI characterizes the information
costs that searches incur in outperforming blind search.
...
Searches that have a greater
probability of success than blind search do not just magically materialize. They form
by some process. According to LCI, any such search-forming process must build into
the search at least as much information as the search displays in raising the
probability of success.
...
... we are challenging the claim that evolution can create information from
scratch where previously it did not exist.
...
Complexity theorist Stuart
Kauffman understands the challenge:
The no-free-lunch theorem says that, averaged over all possible fitness landscapes, no
search procedure outperforms any other.... In the absence of any knowledge, or
constraint, [read “information”] on the fitness landscape, on average, any search
procedure is as good as any other. But life uses mutation, recombination, and selection.
These search procedures seem to be working quite well. Your typical bat or butterfly has
managed to get itself evolved and seems a rather impressive entity. The no-free-lunch
theorem brings into high relief the puzzle. If mutation, recombination, and selection only
work well on certain kinds of fitness landscapes, yet most organisms are sexual, and
hence use recombination, and all organisms use mutation as a search mechanism, where
did these well-wrought fitness landscapes come from, such that evolution manages to
produce the fancy stuff around us?73
According to Kauffman, “No one knows.”74
...
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking natural selection is to
explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the information that
natural selection requires to execute evolutionary searches. You have to say something
like “the information was always there,” and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way
out, you might as well just say “DNA was always there,” or “Life was always there,” and
be done with it.79
...
Conservation of information therefore points to an information source behind evolution that
imparts at least as much information to the evolutionary process as this process in turn is capable
of expressing by producing biological form and function. As a consequence, such an information
source has three remarkable properties: (1) it cannot be reduced to purely material or natural
causes; (2) it shows that we live in an informationally porous universe; and (3) it may rightly be
regarded as intelligent. The Law of Conservation of Information therefore counts as a positive
reason to accept intelligent design. In particular, it establishes ID’s scientific bona fides.
 
.............
The universe seems to have produced only things that are possible within the constraints of the laws of physics. No surprise, but that is all we can say.

This is a tautology, and obviously more can be observed about this physical system of ours. However it came about it is not as if almost any sort of system of natural laws could allow life. Fine tuning as the incredible confluence of an interacting system of natural laws and physics quantities allowing life to exist is real, in that the vast majority of possible universes would be too unstable or not have the conditions and natural laws necessary for "biological" evolution of any kind. Other systems of life might be possible, but in a multiverse they would be vastly outnumbered by sterile universes. As mentioned before, "fine tuning" could be due either to a fine tuner or it could be an artifact of anthropic self-selection, but whatever it is it exists and is extraordinary.

.
 
the word tautology is something to eat this is made up it is intended to contradict somebody. But really doesn't actually mean anything hahaha
 
I'm using the microphone feature on my cell phone so it's if it is misspelling words I apologize I just wanted to say the word talk to college she is amazing up word by e d s contradict religious people based on nothing
 
Back
Top