Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Parsimony]

We can be certain about was sufficiently observed/verified but it would help to remember that observations of the physical world only verify the effects not the facts. We can observe the effects of a physical force such as gravity but the nature of this invisible force, why it has this power, why it has a specific value, we may never know. We maybe happy with our measurements of these effects but this limited achievement is as far as we can go. The facts or the nature of these forces will always be a mystery that can not be verified, nonetheless we accept it's existence as a fact.

I can agree. We can gather evidence but never gain complete certainty.

I see this as a perfect example of God. A mysterious force of a higher level. Had a massive influence at the big bang and the creation/calibration of all physical forces. We can see the effect but never understand the fact. This will always be the case.

“We can’t understand it, therefore it’s God” is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

I expected this response but this logic wouldn't work. Possibilities and configurations are inseparable like two sides of a coin. If you have a dice with 6 numbers. You have 1/6 chance for any number to appear. If all numbers are same, then it will always appear but if you don't have a dice (configuration), what is the possibility? There is no possibility. The configuration should exist first before you can have any possibility. It's not logical to assume a possibility in absence of existing verified configurations.
The configurations should exist so you would have a possibility.
Imagining a possibility without existing configuration is an illusion.
If the configurations didn't exist, then there is no possibility.

Yes, a possibility necessarily means that it reflects some configuration, but that does not mean that every imaginable configuration is actually possible. Mankind has imagined quite a few configurations that are impossible in reality. Take the impossible staircase, for example.

I can also imagine a configuration for a universe that is impossible in reality: a universe identical to our own in every way except that magnetism doesn’t exist. This universe is impossible because a magnetic field is just an electric field that is viewed from a relativistic reference frame. Any universe where both electric fields and relativity exist, magnetic fields must also exist. However, to someone living hundreds of years ago who thought that magnetism and electricity were separate forces, they might have thought that this universe configuration was plausible when in reality it isn’t. So the same might be true of any universe configuration other than our own. Maybe all alternate configurations contain contradictions like this that we are not aware of. If this is so, then no alternative configurations were ever possible in the first place. There then would be no mystery as to why the laws of physics have the values they have.

Possibility is meaningless in absence of configurations. You would necessarily have "0" possibility unless the configurations do exist. Possibility needs elements (dice), process (force to throw the dice) and end result (a possibility). If the elements of possibility are missing, there is no possibility. the blue marble (configuration) should be first in the basin so you would have a possibility.

No problem there. Configurations can exist conceptually without actually being possible physically (as I pointed out with the impossible staircase and the magnetism-less universe.

If the configuration didn't exist yet the blue marble appeared after the process, then this was not a possibility.

Yet our universe does exist, so it must be possible. We don't know if any other universe configurations are possible because we don't know if they can exist.

What logic? The only logic would be the end result of forming the universe but If you have a mindless process with no end purpose, what would be the logic? And if you have a logic, what would enforce it? Math can measure an effect but it wouldn't create an effect. The force does.

In this example, math and logic are axiomatic: they just “are”. 12 kilograms weighs more than 10 kilograms and 2+2=4 whether or not anyone is around to know it or not. They are the way they are because they could not have been any different. If you can describe how 2+2 could equal 5, I’d like to hear it.

If that was not an intended purpose, then what would govern the values of the constants?why should the marble be blue?
The blue marble or the universe itself has numerous components and physical forces. If you don't have end purpose, or intelligent process, Why these forces existed? Why the specific value?
What controlls the forces to have specific values in relation to each other so it would form the universe? Let alone the values of the constants, why these mysterious forces exist to begin with. We know these forces formed the universe but what created the forces?
all the numerous forces worked collectively to Create the universe.

My answer remains the same as before: a lack of alternatives.

If its a mindless process then,There is no logic.
A mindless random process wouldn't have any logic.

Mindless processes still operate in accordance to logic and math. A rolling die isn’t intelligent but it does give results that fall within a predictable range (you can’t roll a seven on a six-sided die and each number has an equal probability of showing up. Those are two rules of logic present in a mindless process).

Why would mindless process with no logic, forces all elements to work collectively towards a goal?

You’re assuming there is a goal that is being worked towards in the first place.

You imply that the configurations/possibilities existed before the beginning. If the configuration came after the beginning, then it's not a possibility.
This doesn't imply a possibility. It implies existence of configuration before time.

There is no such thing as “before the beginning”. It’s like saying “north of the north pole”. Not even God could exist before time existed, because time itself is the very context where terms like “before” and “after” are meaningful.

In absence of logic, purpose , configurations, you don't have any marbles or any process to create it.

Agreed, except for “purpose”

You are forcing all possibilities to existence back before the beginning point. The beginning had no configurations/No possibilities.

If possibilities did not exist initially then nothing would be possible, not even God. Remember, no such thing as “before” the beginning. Saying that God is "beyond time" doesn't fix it, either: being "beyond time" is not the same as saying "before time".

 

[Sapiens]

As I understand it there are 7 foundational assumptions that creationists make. There are:

1. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

2. Life was suddenly created.

3. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

4. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism

5. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

6. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

7. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

Are these definitions correct? Are any others missing?

 

[NoorNoor]

I can agree. We can gather evidence but never gain complete certainty

It's not only about certainty but also about the limits of what can be learned through observations. We can observe/measure an influence of a physical force but we can't understand the nature of the force itself or why it has this specific power.

We can’t understand it, therefore it’s God” is the argument from ignorance fallacy

This is not the case. Let's reflect a little on the history of theism in general. Theism acknowledges historical accounts of messengers claimed to be sent by God and also acknowledges specific multiple events that can't be explained by science. I understand you don't believe these events.

If we consider the fact that religions typically came with significant restrictions/challenges against existing cultures/traditions at that time, then the question is""would some mere fiction with no evidence be enough to challenge these cultures/traditions and results thousands of followers of these religions?""

it's a fact today that billions of people follow these religions. how did that happen? Is it more probable to assume some fiction was the reason or actually because significant events that can't be explained (for example the exodus) have been witnessed by thousands of people, documented and then continued to be believed from one generation to another by millions of people of the abrahamic faith?

The fact that billions of followers exist today supports the probability that these events actually happened. If you claim it didn't, then what would be the evidence to support this claim other than belief/disbelief? You will say, it's not consistent with scientific laws, but isn't that is the definition of a miracle? Wouldn't these miracles be the reason for the existence of these billions of followers today? What would be the evidence that these events didn't happen or were not witnessed (and documented) by large number of people?

Lets go back to the original subject. Cosmic beginning is a fact and a physical necessity. The beginning was the big bang. A point beyond which there were no matter, time, space or physical laws. The question is, Can some thing arise out of nothing? The answer would be most probably no. Then there was something but this something would be different /undefined according to our science, if this undefined has existence beyond spacetime, then it doesn't have limits or a beginning, no beginning means no dependency on another influence for its own existence, yet it was the cause that brought the big bang/universe to existence.

That means, the big bang didn't arise out of nothing but because of the existence of this undefined cause. This undefined cause beyond the big bang is necessarily not physical and cant be explained /understood by science. Yet it would be the cause for the big bang and the fine tuning of the universe.

Now, We have a phenomenon/data and two models theism and naturalism. the question is which model Is the best fit for the data.

Theism, based on historical accounts (supported by existing billions of followers today) in addition to cosmic observations/data, claims God would be the most probable explanation consistent with these data/historical accounts.

Naturalism, don't provide an explanation of why the big bang happened at this specific point, how can the universe arise out of nothing or the fine tuning of the universe.

what model would best fit the data? If we observed an influence at the big bang that dictates a need for a force of a totally higher magnitude, what is the basis to deny the existence of this undefined cause (God) especially if that existence is beyond the realm of our physical world. Why can't the creation point be considered as an evidence for that existence? What are the evidence against the claimed existence of God?

Yes, a possibility necessarily means that it reflects some configuration

Yes, the existence of a possibility necessarily depends on prior existence of configurations.

but that does not mean that every imaginable configuration is actually possible.

Who claimed every or any imaginable configuration to be a possibility? In fact, an imagined possibility is only a hypothesis (mental product) not a possibility at all. you may imagine that throwing an imaginary dice would create an imaginary possibility. But you don't have any real possibility unless you first have the dice itself. In another words, there is huge difference between a verified real possibility (based on verified existing configurations) and an assumed or imagined possibility. The imagined possibility is only a hypothesis (even if it appears to work). It's not a real possibility at all.

Mankind has imagined quite a few configurations that are impossible in reality. Take the impossible staircase, for example.

Possibility means something has a potential to materialize based on existing verified conditions. The existence of the conditions, creates this potential. "imagined possibility" is not a real possibility. In other words, there is no prior existence of verified evidence to support the potential for this possibility to materialize.

I can also imagine a configuration for a universe that is impossible in reality: a universe identical to our own in every way except that magnetism doesn’t exist. This universe is impossible because a magnetic field is just an electric field that is viewed from a relativistic reference frame. Any universe where both electric fields and relativity exist, magnetic fields must also exist. However, to someone living hundreds of years ago who thought that magnetism and electricity were separate forces, they might have thought that this universe configuration was plausible when in reality it isn’t

We agree. no imaginable possibility would be a real possibility without existing conditions that actually create the potential. In absence of these, conditions, you don't have any real possibility.

So the same might be true of any universe configuration other than our own. Maybe all alternate configurations contain contradictions like this that we are not aware of. If this is so, then no alternative configurations were ever possible in the first place

We agree that any or all alternate configurations would contain contradictions. If this is so, then the questions stays, what makes the correct configuration possible at all If there was no prior conditions that created the potential?

There then would be no mystery as to why the laws of physics have the values they have

It would be a total mystery in absence of an existing conditions or cause that created the potential.

No problem there. Configurations can exist conceptually without actually being possible physically (as I pointed out with the impossible staircase and the magnetism-less universe)

Its actually a huge problem. Conceptual or imagined possibility is not a real possibility at all in absence of an existing conditions/cause to create the potential. This imagined staircase is not a real possibility at all.

Yet our universe does exist, so it must be possible. We don't know if any other universe configurations are possible because we don't know if they can exist.

An imaginary possibility doesn't create any real potential for the blue marble to come to existence but as you said "our universe does exist, so it must be possible". That implies the existence of conditions/cause (not imaginary) that actually created the real potential. The issue is, this cause would be totally undefined since the cause is beyond time, space and any physical existence.

In this example, math and logic are axiomatic: they just “are”. 12 kilograms weighs more than 10 kilograms and 2+2=4 whether or not anyone is around to know it or not. They are the way they are because they could not have been any different. If you can describe how 2+2 could equal 5, I’d

Again, math measures configurations. It Doesn't create configuration. Math can measure the effects of a gravitational field but it doesn't create the field. On the other hand, the field can exert the force to create specific configuration depending on the value of the force. This value can be measured by math but the math doesn't dictate the value.

My answer remains the same as before: a lack of alternatives.

It's not lack of alternatives. If you don't have prior conditions to create the potential , then it's a complete lack of any potential at all.

Mindless processes still operate in accordance to logic and math. A rolling die isn’t intelligent but it does give results that fall within a predictable range (you can’t roll a seven on a six-sided die and each number has an equal probability of showing up. Those are two rules of logic present in a mindless process)

Math is a function of the given values of the forces but what gave the forces these values. Intelligent logic would dictate specific values are required to form the universe but what would dictate/enforce the logic or give the constants it's values?

The rolling die potential is only predictable because of the prior existence of verified conditions that granted the potential.

You’re assuming there is a goal that is being worked towards in the first place.

In my example, I am not assuming a goal but actually the opposite. if we assume no goal, then what is the logic, what defines it? what dictates it?

There is no such thing as “before the beginning”. It’s like saying “north of the north pole”. Not even God could exist before time existed, because time itself is the very context where terms like “before” and “after” are meaningfu

Exactly, no thing exist before its own beginning. The big bang is the beginning of the universe not God. God doesn't have a beginning. Because his existence is beyond spacetime. "Before" or "after" don't have any meaning beyond time. It's only the language limitation with respect to this undefined zone with total absence of any thing physical (including time).

If possibilities did not exist initially then nothing would be possible, not even God. Remember, no such thing as “before” the beginning. Saying that God is "beyond time" doesn't fix it, either: being "beyond time" is not the same as saying "before time".

The "possibility" of our universe actually existed because of the existence of the (undefined) cause (it didn't arise out of nothing). God would be the cause not the effect. It's true that no effect (the universe) would exist before its own beginning but the cause should exist. If every thing physical (including time) started at the beginning, then the cause is necessarily beyond time. Being beyond time necessarily implies continual independent existence parallel /beyond our existence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If we consider the fact that religions typically came with significant restrictions/challenges against existing cultures/traditions at that time, then the question is""would some mere fiction with no evidence be enough to challenge these cultures/traditions and results thousands of followers of these religions?""

Yes. It happens all the time. Look at the political, cultural or social history of almost any society. Ideological systems rise, fall and change constantly.

it's a fact today that billions of people follow these religions. how did that happen?

Because religion and religious trends and practices are deeply embedded in cultures and families around the world, religious organizations wield tremendous power and influence, and religion can offer support, answers and basic philosophical underpinnings to the lives of billions of people. None of that reflects in any way on the validity of religious beliefs themselves.

Is it more probable to assume some fiction was the reason or actually because significant events that can't be explained (for example the exodus) have been witnessed by thousands of people, documented and then continued to be believed from one generation to another by millions of people of the abrahamic faith?

It is more probable that what the evidence indicates happens happened.

The fact that billions of followers exist today supports the probability that these events actually happened.

Utterly false. Even if every human being on the planet believed the same thing, it does not make it true, nor even "more probable" that it's true. What's more, if it were true, it would be less likely that those billions of people would all have extremely conflicting beliefs - which they do.

If you claim it didn't, then what would be the evidence to support this claim other than belief/disbelief?

They don't need to provide evidence. You don't require evidence in order to disbelieve a claim - you need evidence to justify belief.

You will say, it's not consistent with scientific laws, but isn't that is the definition of a miracle?

For starters, no it isn't. The definition of a miracle is an event which can only be explained by some form of divine or supernatural intervention.

For seconds, that's precisely why there's no good reason to believe any miracles have ever occurred.

Wouldn't these miracles be the reason for the existence of these billions of followers today?

No. The stories of the miracles could be, however.

What would be the evidence that these events didn't happen or were not witnessed (and documented) by large number of people?

The fact that they are almost always completely unverifiable, and the supposed "large numbers of people" almost never leave behind first hand accounts anyway.

Lets go back to the original subject. Cosmic beginning is a fact and a physical necessity. The beginning was the big bang. A point beyond which there were no matter, time, space or physical laws. The question is, Can some thing arise out of nothing? The answer would be most probably no.

You cannot possibly have any idea whether or not that statement is true. How many examples of "nothing" have been observed or documented? Have you ever examined "nothing"? Name one experiment ever conducted to test the qualities of "nothing" and whether or not it is capable of producing anything.

Then there was something but this something would be different /undefined according to our science, if this undefined has existence beyond spacetime, then it doesn't have limits or a beginning, no beginning means no dependency on another influence for its own existence, yet it was the cause that brought the big bang/universe to existence.

All baseless assumptions. You have no good reason to assume ANY of these things are true, or are even possible.

That means, the big bang didn't arise out of nothing but because of the existence of this undefined cause. This undefined cause beyond the big bang is necessarily not physical and cant be explained /understood by science. Yet it would be the cause for the big bang and the fine tuning of the universe.

Again, you cannot even possibly know this to be true. Where is your reasoning?

Now, We have a phenomenon/data and two models theism and naturalism. the question is which model Is the best fit for the data.

Theism, based on historical accounts (supported by existing billions of followers today) in addition to cosmic observations/data, claims God would be the most probable explanation consistent with these data/historical accounts.

Naturalism, don't provide an explanation of why the big bang happened at this specific point, how can the universe arise out of nothing or the fine tuning of the universe.

This is just a blatant argument from ignorance. "Because this provides an answer, it is more probably the correct one". Do you not see the flaw in that logic? I have already explained to you why the supposed "fine tuning" argument is total bunk, and to argue that naturalism can't explain it is doubly so.

what model would best fit the data?

You can't possibly say, because you have no means to attain the veracity of the supposed "historical accounts" of any kind of God, and you have no observations which support that conclusion.

If we observed an influence at the big bang that dictates a need for a force of a totally higher magnitude, what is the basis to deny the existence of this undefined cause (God) especially if that existence is beyond the realm of our physical world. Why can't the creation point be considered as an evidence for that existence?

Because that's called affirming the consequent - you're imagining a thing into existence as a cause, and then claiming the result is evidence of this imagined thin being the cause. It's no different to saying "Pixies grow flowers. Flowers exist, therefore this is evidence of pixies".

What are the evidence against the claimed existence of God?

The lack of evidence for their existence, and the fact that in your attempt to provide said evidence you have done nothing but commit a series of logical fallacies and failed to provide even a solitary fact that actually supports said conclusion. "People believe it" isn't evidence. "It provides an explanation" isn't evidence. "God created the Universe: the Universe exists: therefore God" isn't evidence. These are basic logical fallacies that anyone who has spent any time trying to understand this level of debate would know do not hold any merit in intelligent discourse. The fact that you think these arguments would be in any way compelling is an insult to the intelligence of the people on this forum, yourself included.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It's not only about certainty but also about the limits of what can be learned through observations.

So are you dodging my last post now?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now, We have a phenomenon/data and two models theism and naturalism. the question is which model Is the best fit for the data.

Theism, based on historical accounts (supported by existing billions of followers today) in addition to cosmic observations/data, claims God would be the most probable explanation consistent with these data/historical accounts.

Naturalism, don't provide an explanation of why the big bang happened at this specific point, how can the universe arise out of nothing or the fine tuning of the universe.

what model would best fit the data? If we observed an influence at the big bang that dictates a need for a force of a totally higher magnitude, what is the basis to deny the existence of this undefined cause (God) especially if that existence is beyond the realm of our physical world. Why can't the creation point be considered as an evidence for that existence? What are the evidence against the claimed existence of God?

That pretty much sums it up. In this age of information, we know how to recognize the difference between the fingerprints of randomness and design. We no longer believe that the universe is static/eternal, without beginning, or that simple laws of classical physics are enough to account for physical reality, or that single cells can morph into human beings without a complex programming language underwriting it. Materialism suited a simple naive view of nature that has long been put to rest scientifically.

 

[metis]

"Beginnings" are assigned by arbitrarily drawing a line and saying "It began here".

 

[Parsimony]

It's not only about certainty but also about the limits of what can be learned through observations. We can observe/measure an influence of a physical force but we can't understand the nature of the force itself or why it has this specific power.

This is not the case. Let's reflect a little on the history of theism in general. Theism acknowledges historical accounts of messengers claimed to be sent by God and also acknowledges specific multiple events that can't be explained by science. I understand you don't believe these events.

If we consider the fact that religions typically came with significant restrictions/challenges against existing cultures/traditions at that time, then the question is""would some mere fiction with no evidence be enough to challenge these cultures/traditions and results thousands of followers of these religions?""

it's a fact today that billions of people follow these religions. how did that happen? Is it more probable to assume some fiction was the reason or actually because significant events that can't be explained (for example the exodus) have been witnessed by thousands of people, documented and then continued to be believed from one generation to another by millions of people of the abrahamic faith?

The fact that billions of followers exist today supports the probability that these events actually happened. If you claim it didn't, then what would be the evidence to support this claim other than belief/disbelief? You will say, it's not consistent with scientific laws, but isn't that is the definition of a miracle? Wouldn't these miracles be the reason for the existence of these billions of followers today? What would be the evidence that these events didn't happen or were not witnessed (and documented) by large number of people?

Lets go back to the original subject. Cosmic beginning is a fact and a physical necessity. The beginning was the big bang. A point beyond which there were no matter, time, space or physical laws. The question is, Can some thing arise out of nothing? The answer would be most probably no. Then there was something but this something would be different /undefined according to our science, if this undefined has existence beyond spacetime, then it doesn't have limits or a beginning, no beginning means no dependency on another influence for its own existence, yet it was the cause that brought the big bang/universe to existence.

That means, the big bang didn't arise out of nothing but because of the existence of this undefined cause. This undefined cause beyond the big bang is necessarily not physical and cant be explained /understood by science. Yet it would be the cause for the big bang and the fine tuning of the universe.

Now, We have a phenomenon/data and two models theism and naturalism. the question is which model Is the best fit for the data.

Theism, based on historical accounts (supported by existing billions of followers today) in addition to cosmic observations/data, claims God would be the most probable explanation consistent with these data/historical accounts.

Naturalism, don't provide an explanation of why the big bang happened at this specific point, how can the universe arise out of nothing or the fine tuning of the universe.

what model would best fit the data? If we observed an influence at the big bang that dictates a need for a force of a totally higher magnitude, what is the basis to deny the existence of this undefined cause (God) especially if that existence is beyond the realm of our physical world. Why can't the creation point be considered as an evidence for that existence? What are the evidence against the claimed existence of God?

I agree that supernatural things could have happened in the past (or even now). That still doesn't excuse an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when the lack of evidence on one side of the argument is perceived as being the presence of evidence on the other side. This is particularly true when unknowns are present: "X can't explain this mysterious phenomenon, therefore Y explains it". It may be that X can indeed explain the phenomenon some day in the future or it may be that both X and Y are wrong and some third explanation Z is correct.

Yes, the existence of a possibility necessarily depends on prior existence of configurations.

Who claimed every or any imaginable configuration to be a possibility? In fact, an imagined possibility is only a hypothesis (mental product) not a possibility at all. you may imagine that throwing an imaginary dice would create an imaginary possibility. But you don't have any real possibility unless you first have the dice itself. In another words, there is huge difference between a verified real possibility (based on verified existing configurations) and an assumed or imagined possibility. The imagined possibility is only a hypothesis (even if it appears to work). It's not a real possibility at all.

Possibility means something has a potential to materialize based on existing verified conditions. The existence of the conditions, creates this potential. "imagined possibility" is not a real possibility. In other words, there is no prior existence of verified evidence to support the potential for this possibility to materialize.

We agree. no imaginable possibility would be a real possibility without existing conditions that actually create the potential. In absence of these, conditions, you don't have any real possibility.

We agree that any or all alternate configurations would contain contradictions. If this is so, then the questions stays, what makes the correct configuration possible at all If there was no prior conditions that created the potential?

It would be a total mystery in absence of an existing conditions or cause that created the potential.

Its actually a huge problem. Conceptual or imagined possibility is not a real possibility at all in absence of an existing conditions/cause to create the potential. This imagined staircase is not a real possibility at all.

An imaginary possibility doesn't create any real potential for the blue marble to come to existence but as you said "our universe does exist, so it must be possible". That implies the existence of conditions/cause (not imaginary) that actually created the real potential. The issue is, this cause would be totally undefined since the cause is beyond time, space and any physical existence.

Again, math measures configurations. It Doesn't create configuration. Math can measure the effects of a gravitational field but it doesn't create the field. On the other hand, the field can exert the force to create specific configuration depending on the value of the force. This value can be measured by math but the math doesn't dictate the value.

It's not lack of alternatives. If you don't have prior conditions to create the potential , then it's a complete lack of any potential at all.

Math is a function of the given values of the forces but what gave the forces these values. Intelligent logic would dictate specific values are required to form the universe but what would dictate/enforce the logic or give the constants it's values?

The rolling die potential is only predictable because of the prior existence of verified conditions that granted the potential.

In my example, I am not assuming a goal but actually the opposite. if we assume no goal, then what is the logic, what defines it? what dictates it?

Exactly, no thing exist before its own beginning. The big bang is the beginning of the universe not God. God doesn't have a beginning. Because his existence is beyond spacetime. "Before" or "after" don't have any meaning beyond time. It's only the language limitation with respect to this undefined zone with total absence of any thing physical (including time).

The "possibility" of our universe actually existed because of the existence of the (undefined) cause (it didn't arise out of nothing). God would be the cause not the effect. It's true that no effect (the universe) would exist before its own beginning but the cause should exist. If every thing physical (including time) started at the beginning, then the cause is necessarily beyond time. Being beyond time necessarily implies continual independent existence parallel /beyond our existence.

It sounds like you're getting away from the "fine-tuning argument" and heading into the "first cause argument" instead. That's not what I was talking about. I was speaking specifically about the fine-tuning argument when I talked about possibilities. The fine-tuning argument posits that, without an intelligent designer, our universe coming into existence instead of a multitude of other, lifeless universes due to chance is vanishingly small. The problem with the argument is that it assumes that chance could have ever produced a universe different from our own. It assumes that there are red marbles. Even you agree that there is no evidence for red marbles. So the idea that chance could have produced a universe different from our own is as speculative as the multiverse itself is. It also assumes that, if other universes could have indeed existed instead of our own, none of them could have supported any form of life (carbon-based or otherwise). This too is speculative. In order for the fine-tuning argument to gain traction, it would need to provide evidence that (1) there are indeed other ways that our universe could have turned out had intelligent influence not been active, and (2) that most or all of those alternative universes would have been lifeless. So far, it hasn't done either.

 

[NoorNoor]

I agree that supernatural things could have happened in the past (or even now). That still doesn't excuse an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when the lack of evidence on one side of the argument is perceived as being the presence of evidence on the other side

Ignorance is the state of being unaware or deliberately ignore important info/data. Your definition of "An argument from ignorance" may fit the naturalism model because:

1) The (assumed) lack of evidence for the existence of God is considered by naturalists as evidence for the non existence of God. Which is not true.

2) Naturalism ignores significance of historical accounts/past events that resulted billions of theists today and significance of cosmic observation/data (especially the creation point at the big bang/fine tuned universe).

3) naturalism tends to acknowledge an imagined future explanation while ignoring the implication of existing data.

This is particularly true when unknowns are present: "X can't explain this mysterious phenomenon, therefore Y explains it". It may be that X can indeed explain the phenomenon some day in the future or it may be that both X and Y are wrong and some third explanation Z is correct

when unknowns are present, the most probable explanation can be identified through comparing available data to a model or multiple models to identify which model is the most probable. It s not X can't, therefore Y explains it but It's about comparing the probabilities of X or Y as the best fit for specific observed phenomenon/data.

In your case, your claimed model can't explain God, therefore God doesn't exist. your claimed model intentionally ignores any significance to existing historical accounts/cosmic data that would support the opposite model.
Your claimed model doesn't acknowledge significance of existing data but acknowledges significance of an imagined future explanation "Z".

Naturalism and theism may view each other as "An argument from ignorance". But this would be an irrelevant argument. I hope we could stay focused on the specific points of discussion other than getting sidetracked to some sort of irrelevant ad hominem.

It sounds like you're getting away from the "fine-tuning argument" and heading into the "first cause argument" instead. That's not what I was talking about. I was speaking specifically about the fine-tuning argument when I talked about possibilities

You can't discuss possibility without the first cause. It's all interconnected. The first cause is what gave the blue marble the potential to exist.

The fine-tuning argument posits that, without an intelligent designer, our universe coming into existence instead of a multitude of other, lifeless universes due to chance is vanishingly small. The problem with the argument is that it assumes that chance could have ever produced a universe different from our own. It assumes that there are red marbles. Even you agree that there is no evidence for red marbles. So the idea that chance could have produced a universe different from our own is as speculative as the multiverse itself is. It also assumes that, if other universes could have indeed existed instead of our own, none of them could have supported any form of life (carbon-based or otherwise). This too is speculative. In order for the fine-tuning argument to gain traction, it would need to provide evidence that (1) there are indeed other ways that our universe could have turned out had intelligent influence not been active, and (2) that most or all of those alternative universes would have been lifeless. So far, it hasn't done either

Mainstream scientists typically invokes the Multiverse model with the assumed existence of infinite universes to eliminate a need for a creator (since our universe would be an accident as a matter of statistics). yet your model acknowledges only one possible universe as the basis to eliminate a need for a creator. This is a major illogical contradiction. What would make the blue marble possible at all? you may insist on your view but the Mainstream view is that our single universe wouldn't be a product of chance unless Multiverse is acknowledged.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1) The (assumed) lack of evidence for the existence of God is considered by naturalists as evidence for the non existence of God. Which is not true.

Firstly, if no evidence has been presented, no "assumption" is required.

Secondly, you're flat-out wrong. I've never encountered anyone on these forums, naturalist or otherwise, who claimed that a lack of evidence for God could be considered evidence for the non existence of God, That is little more than a strawman.

2) Naturalism ignores significance of historical accounts/past events that resulted billions of theists today and significance of cosmic observation/data (especially the creation point at the big bang/fine tuned universe).

No it doesn't - it just doesn't assume supernatural elements had anything to do with either. Yet again you are using the demonstrably false "fine-tuned Universe" argument. Do you not understand why this argument is flawed? I have already explained it - do you need me to explain it again?

3) naturalism tends to acknowledge an imagined future explanation while ignoring the implication of existing data.

False. No "imagined future explanation" needs to be considered - you need only hold the position that an answer may not yet exist and be open to the possibility of an answer existing in the future - whatever that answer might be. Yet again, this is nothing but a strawman. You are woefully uninformed about naturalists.

when unknowns are present, the most probable explanation can be identified through comparing available data to a model or multiple models to identify which model is the most probable. It s not X can't, therefore Y explains it but It's about comparing the probabilities of X or Y as the best fit for specific observed phenomenon/data.

The problem is applying this kind of logic to the question of God is that you are positing something that you cannot possibly quantify the probability of. If this is wrong, then please present - in exact numbers, with your working - how you can accurately determine the "probability" of God's existence.

In your case, your claimed model can't explain God, therefore God doesn't exist. your claimed model intentionally ignores any significance to existing historical accounts/cosmic data that would support the opposite model.

Again, "historical accounts" are irrelevant. If every single human who ever lived all believed in God - even the exact same God - that says literally absolutely nothing about the objective probability of God existing, because everyone who has ever lived can still be wrong. Do you honestly think that if you have a room with five people in it who have never seen the sky, and three of them believe the sky is green and two of them believe the sky is red, that in any way impacts the probability that the sky is blue? If you say no, then you must understand why the "probability" of something is completely independent of individual beliefs on the subject.

Naturalism and theism may view each other as "An argument from ignorance".

Then theism would obviously be wrong, because naturalism doesn't necessarily formulate an argument from ignorance (for the record, neither does theism - theism ITSELF isn't an argument from ignorance, just some of the logic used in favour of it, including your own).

Mainstream scientists typically invokes the Multiverse model with the assumed existence of infinite universes to eliminate a need for a creator (since our universe would be an accident as a matter of statistics).

False. Scientists do not try to "eliminate the need" for anything. Do you have any evidence for this vast anti-God conspiracy by scientists? Also, the multiverse theory (at least, as I understand it) doesn't necessarily evoke INFINITE Universes.

 

[metis]

The multiverse hypothesis is a logical by-product from what we now know about quantum mechanics. Even though infinity is not necessarily intrinsic with either concept, it at the least becomes quite a logical possibility. However, neither posits a god or gods or none of the above.

 

[Parsimony]

Ignorance is the state of being unaware or deliberately ignore important info/data. Your definition of "An argument from ignorance" may fit the naturalism model because:

1) The (assumed) lack of evidence for the existence of God is considered by naturalists as evidence for the non existence of God. Which is not true.

2) Naturalism ignores significance of historical accounts/past events that resulted billions of theists today and significance of cosmic observation/data (especially the creation point at the big bang/fine tuned universe).

3) naturalism tends to acknowledge an imagined future explanation while ignoring the implication of existing data.

when unknowns are present, the most probable explanation can be identified through comparing available data to a model or multiple models to identify which model is the most probable. It s not X can't, therefore Y explains it but It's about comparing the probabilities of X or Y as the best fit for specific observed phenomenon/data.

In your case, your claimed model can't explain God, therefore God doesn't exist. your claimed model intentionally ignores any significance to existing historical accounts/cosmic data that would support the opposite model.
Your claimed model doesn't acknowledge significance of existing data but acknowledges significance of an imagined future explanation "Z".

Naturalism and theism may view each other as "An argument from ignorance". But this would be an irrelevant argument. I hope we could stay focused on the specific points of discussion other than getting sidetracked to some sort of irrelevant ad hominem.

I'm not talking about theism as a whole being an argument from ignorance. It isn't. I'm talking about one specific instance in your posts where you equated the mysterious with God. Just because something is mysterious doesn't automatically make it God.

You can't discuss possibility without the first cause. It's all interconnected. The first cause is what gave the blue marble the potential to exist.

So then the fine-tuning argument proves nothing and you have to go to the first cause argument instead. That would make the fine-tuning argument redundant.

Mainstream scientists typically invokes the Multiverse model with the assumed existence of infinite universes to eliminate a need for a creator (since our universe would be an accident as a matter of statistics). yet your model acknowledges only one possible universe as the basis to eliminate a need for a creator.

I'm not trying to "eliminate a need for a creator". I'm acknowledging that our universe might be the only possible one, meaning that the whole "design vs. chance" thing is a false dichotomy.

This is a major illogical contradiction.

If you really think so, then you still haven't understood my argument. Neither chance nor intelligence can create the impossible.

What would make the blue marble possible at all?

Internal self-consistency.

you may insist on your view but the Mainstream view is that our single universe wouldn't be a product of chance unless Multiverse is acknowledged.

I don't "insist" on it, rather I'm saying that it only "might" be the case. The multiverse hypothesis assumes that alternative laws of physics are possible, which we don't know that they are. If they aren't, then our universe would look the same whether it was created by an intelligence or by chance (because, as I said before, neither chance nor intelligence can produce the impossible).

 

[NoorNoor]

I'm not talking about theism as a whole being an argument from ignorance. It isn't. I'm talking about one specific instance in your posts where you equated the mysterious with God. Just because something is mysterious doesn't automatically make it God.

Did I say its mysterious then its God? I am not sure why this the way you understood it but it appears that your specific presupposition about theism doesn’t allow you to have a neutral view. In fact, you are describing your own oversimplified perspective. Its unknown then automatically can’t be God, but why?

What would make you certain it’s not God? You will say, what makes you certain its God? again it’s not about certainty. It’s about specific observations / data and two models. The big bang (a creation point) is a mainstream view, the fine tuning is actually a consensus among cosmologists, the magnitude of theism today implies a basis or past events of a proportional significance. These observations/data would be consistent with the theism model. Naturalism stops at the big band. What’s beyond is unknown but why can’t the unknown be God?

The cause of an event of such magnitude as the big bang would be necessarily of an extreme power, it would be necessarily unlimited /eternal (beyond spacetime). Also the observed fine tuning indicates an extremely intelligent design that requires an extremely intelligent designer. Why can’t such cause be God? What makes you believe that his existence is not possible?

So then the fine-tuning argument proves nothing and you have to go to the first cause argument instead. That would make the fine-tuning argument redundant.

The marble needs a first cause to exist (big bang) and needs intelligence to be blue (fine tuned).

I'm not trying to "eliminate a need for a creator". I'm acknowledging that our universe might be the only possible one, meaning that the whole "design vs. chance" thing is a false dichotomy.

In other words, you think a single possible universe doesn’t necessitate a need for a creator.

If you really think so, then you still haven't understood my argument. Neither chance nor intelligence can create the impossible.

I understand your argument but it’s not logical. First of all, do you understand the contradiction between your argument and the mainstream view of multiverse? You are making an opposite argument to end up with the same conclusion.

Again, what would make the marble possible and why the blue color? The marble is possible because of the first cause. Its color is blue because all values were controlled by intelligence.

If we agree a computer logically needs input device, data processing/storage capability and output device, can you claim that since this the only logical way a computer should be then it would just somehow appear without a need for an intelligent process to precisely control the configurations/internal relationships between all components?

Internal self-consistency.

What dictates this consistency? What dictate A value for gravity, B value for the dark energy, C value for the strong nuclear force, etc? These values could have been anything and the end result doesn’t matter in case of a mindless process.

I don't "insist" on it, rather I'm saying that it only "might" be the case. The multiverse hypothesis assumes that alternative laws of physics are possible, which we don't know that they are. If they aren't, then our universe would look the same whether it was created by an intelligence or by chance (because, as I said before, neither chance nor intelligence can produce the impossible).

It would be impossible only in absence of the first cause. You would get neither blue nor red marble.

In your case, you may not acknowledge a first cause but you still think the marble should be blue to be possible. Why do you think it should be logical to be possible (especially in absence of logic or intelligence)? Colors and values could have been anything. nothing would dictate logical values of the constants. Sure it may not be a functional design but why would it matter?

 

[Parsimony]

Did I say its mysterious then its God?

You said: "The facts or the nature of these forces will always be a mystery that can not be verified, nonetheless we accept it's existence as a fact. I see this as a perfect example of God. A mysterious force of a higher level." So you were equating something that we do not understand with God because we do not understand it.

I am not sure why this the way you understood it but it appears that your specific presupposition about theism doesn’t allow you to have a neutral view. In fact, you are describing your own oversimplified perspective. Its unknown then automatically can’t be God, but why?
What would make you certain it’s not God? You will say, what makes you certain its God? again it’s not about certainty. It’s about specific observations / data and two models. The big bang (a creation point) is a mainstream view, the fine tuning is actually a consensus among cosmologists, the magnitude of theism today implies a basis or past events of a proportional significance. These observations/data would be consistent with the theism model. Naturalism stops at the big band. What’s beyond is unknown but why can’t the unknown be God?

Why can’t such cause be God? What makes you believe that his existence is not possible?

When did I say that I was certain that it isn't God? I never did. At no point did I deny God's existence. I only showed that the fine-tuning argument specifically is insufficient to demonstrate a creator because you don't know that non-blue configurations are possible under any circumstances.

The cause of an event of such magnitude as the big bang would be necessarily of an extreme power, it would be necessarily unlimited /eternal (beyond spacetime). Also the observed fine tuning indicates an extremely intelligent design that requires an extremely intelligent designer.

You’ve yet to demonstrate that the universe is fine-tuned, because you don’t know that non-fine-tuned universes can exist to contrast it with.

The marble needs a first cause to exist (big bang) and needs intelligence to be blue (fine tuned).
Again, what would make the marble possible and why the blue color? The marble is possible because of the first cause. Its color is blue because all values were controlled by intelligence.

First cause, sure, I agree. However, it only needs intelligence to be blue if non-blue configurations are possible. If they aren't then the guiding hand of a creator would not have been necessary to make it blue.

In other words, you think a single possible universe doesn’t necessitate a need for a creator.

If there is only one possible universe, then you would not be able to tell from its properties whether it was caused by random chance or a creator because it would look the same in either case.

I understand your argument but it’s not logical. First of all, do you understand the contradiction between your argument and the mainstream view of multiverse? You are making an opposite argument to end up with the same conclusion.

Then you don’t really understand my argument, because you are applying the same base assumptions behind the multiverse to my own argument (which has different assumptions). The assumption behind the multiverse is that alternate laws of physics are possible, and therefore every possibility must be realized in order for our universe to have been brought into existence by chance. In the model that I am speculating about, alternate laws are not possible and thus the realization of “every possibility” is really only the realization of one possibility: the blue marble universe.

If we agree a computer logically needs input device, data processing/storage capability and output device, can you claim that since this the only logical way a computer should be then it would just somehow appear without a need for an intelligent process to precisely control the configurations/internal relationships between all components?

Many configurations of matter are possible, but only a few of them can be computers. If, however, the only possible configuration of matter was a computer, then there would be no need for intelligent input because both intelligence and random chance would give the same outcome: a computer. The fact that intelligence is needed to construct a computer is because alternative arrangement of matter are actually possible.

What dictates this consistency?

You realize what consistency is, right? A lack of contradictions or inconsistencies. You might as well be asking why the statement “this triangle has three sides” is self-consistent and the statement “this triangle has four sides” is self-contradictory. They just are.

What dictate A value for gravity, B value for the dark energy, C value for the strong nuclear force, etc?

The same thing that dictates why 2 plus 2 can only equal 4: internal consistency.

These values could have been anything
Colors and values could have been anything.

That's just it: you don't know that. That is precisely what I've been arguing. If non-blue colors are internally contradictory, then you couldn't have just "anything" in the absence of an intelligence. You could only have the blue marble. You have yet to provide evidence that the values could have been any different under any circumstances.

It would be impossible only in absence of the first cause. You would get neither blue nor red marble.
In your case, you may not acknowledge a first cause but you still think the marble should be blue to be possible. Why do you think it should be logical to be possible (especially in absence of logic or intelligence)?

We can posit a first cause which brought the blue marble universe into existence, sure. It doesn’t mean that the first cause has to be intelligent (since intelligence isn’t needed when there is only one possibility to select). I never said there was an absence of logic. Logic and intelligence are not the same thing and logically impossible things would still be impossible even if there was no intelligence around to reason that they were impossible. Intelligence doesn’t create logic, it simply uses it.

 

[NoorNoor]

You said: "The facts or the nature of these forces will always be a mystery that can not be verified, nonetheless we accept it's existence as a fact. I see this as a perfect example of God. A mysterious force of a higher level." So you were equating something that we do not understand with God because we do not understand it.

No, I am saying, we typically accept the existence of a force through the observation of its effects even if the nature of the force itself can't be understood. Similarly, God as a force of a higher level, can be recognized through the observation of his influence even if the nature of his being is a mystery. This is the exact same example of every force that we can observe in our world.

In the model that I am speculating about, alternate laws are not possible and thus the realization of “every possibility” is really only the realization of one possibility: the blue marble universe.

I understand the argument that alternate laws may not be possible to create our universe but What would make alternate laws impossible to exist? it can exist but will not create our universe.

You realize what consistency is, right? A lack of contradictions or inconsistencies. You might as well be asking why the statement “this triangle has three sides” is self-consistent and the statement “this triangle has four sides” is self-contradictory. They just are.

The example of the triangle is very misleading. A shape can have any number of sides. In case it has 3 sides, we call it a triangle. Its just a term to identify a specific shape. It doesn't mean the shape itself can't have any other number of sides.

The same thing that dictates why 2 plus 2 can only equal 4: internal consistency.

No, that's totally different. I am talking about a value of a variable. You are taking about an absolute value. (2 is not a variable. 2 is value of a variable)

a value would only measure the variable but doesn't dictate what the magnitude of the variable should be. Gravity as a variable, may have X value. X is only a measure of the gravitational force but it doesn't dictate what the magnitude of the force should be. This magnitude can be any thing. Nothing would dictate it and no contradiction would exist. The end result would be different but no contradiction.

By the way, other than the case of absolute values, 2+2 may not be 4. 2 pounds + 2 kilograms= about 6 pounds or 3 kilograms. 2 (apple) + 2 (1.5 apple) = 5 apples. 2 variable+ 2 variable= X variable. This is different than the discussion above but its only a thought. Beyond the realm of absolute values, The intrinsic value of variables, influence the result.

That's just it: you don't know that. That is precisely what I've been arguing. If non-blue colors are internally contradictory, then you couldn't have just "anything" in the absence of an intelligence. You could only have the blue marble. You have yet to provide evidence that the values could have been any different under any circumstances.

If gravity value is B instead of A and dark energy is D instead of C, what would make any contradiction? Nothing? What would dictate the value? Also nothing. The values can be any thing. Sure the final result would be different but there is no contradiction. There is No logic.

We can posit a first cause which brought the blue marble universe into existence, sure. It doesn’t mean that the first cause has to be intelligent (since intelligence isn’t needed when there is only one possibility to select). I never said there was an absence of logic. Logic and intelligence are not the same thing and logically impossible things would still be impossible even if there was no intelligence around to reason that they were impossible. Intelligence doesn’t create logic, it simply uses

We can agree on a need for the first cause otherwise, you wouldn't have any marbles at all.

Now, what would make different values of the forces logically impossible? Absolutely nothing? Maybe different values wouldn't make our universe possible but if You assume the universe is not an intended purpose then the values can be anything and it wouldn't create any contradiction.

 

[Parsimony]

No, I am saying, we typically accept the existence of a force through the observation of its effects even if the nature of the force itself can't be understood. Similarly, God as a force of a higher level, can be recognized through the observation of his influence even if the nature of his being is a mystery. This is the exact same example of every force that we can observe in our world.

That still doesn't mean that mysterious, unknown forces are caused by God. An explanation being consistent with an observation is good, but it's not enough to come to a conclusion. A sidewalk might be wet, and one might be able to posit that it is wet because it rained and that would be a consistent explanation: rain can make things wet and the sidewalk is wet. However, the sidewalk might actually be wet because of a burst pipe under the street. So an explanation being consistent with one's current knowledge of the situation is not enough to know that it is right.

I understand the argument that alternate laws may not be possible to create our universe but What would make alternate laws impossible to exist? it can exist but will not create our universe.

The argument is not simply that we know that alternative laws cannot create our universe, it's that we don't know that they can create any universe at all.

The example of the triangle is very misleading. A shape can have any number of sides. In case it has 3 sides, we call it a triangle. Its just a term to identify a specific shape. It doesn't mean the shape itself can't have any other number of sides.

But it does mean that a given definition of something (like the definition of a triangle) is incompatible with any attempt to simultaneously given it a definition that is in direct contradiction to it (like having four sides). Nothing can simultaneously have two contradictory definitions, descriptions or properties, whether they are merely man-made or an aspect of nature itself.

No, that's totally different. I am talking about a value of a variable. You are taking about an absolute value. (2 is not a variable. 2 is value of a variable)

A variable is something that can vary. You don't know that universal constants can vary. Therefore, you don't know that they are variables.

a value would only measure the variable but doesn't dictate what the magnitude of the variable should be. Gravity as a variable, may have X value. X is only a measure of the gravitational force but it doesn't dictate what the magnitude of the force should be. This magnitude can be any thing. Nothing would dictate it and no contradiction would exist. The end result would be different but no contradiction.

By the way, other than the case of absolute values, 2+2 may not be 4. 2 pounds + 2 kilograms= about 6 pounds or 3 kilograms. 2 (apple) + 2 (1.5 apple) = 5 apples. 2 variable+ 2 variable= X variable. This is different than the discussion above but its only a thought. Beyond the realm of absolute values, The intrinsic value of variables, influence the result.

If gravity value is B instead of A and dark energy is D instead of C, what would make any contradiction? Nothing? What would dictate the value? Also nothing. The values can be any thing. Sure the final result would be different but there is no contradiction. There is No logic.

Now, what would make different values of the forces logically impossible? Absolutely nothing?

You don't know that there isn't a contradiction. That's just it. We don't know enough about the way that the universe works at the fundamental level to determine whether changing any given set of values creates a contradiction or not. It's just like with my earlier example of a magnetism-less universe. To an ignorant individual from the 1500's, a magnetism-less universe may seem completely sensible but to a modern scientist knowledgeable in relativity, they would be aware of the contradiction and would rule it out as a possibility. Likewise, we are ignorant of the universe's finest workings and thus any speculation about changing the constants remains in the realm of speculation alone.

Maybe different values wouldn't make our universe possible but if You assume the universe is not an intended purpose then the values can be anything and it wouldn't create any contradiction.

Lack of a purpose doesn't mean that just anything goes. If there are things that even God cannot do (like simultaneously creating a rock too heavy for Himself to lift and lifting it), then that means that the fundamental nature of reality is such that not just anything is possible.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

** Blind Post **

Uh ....No ....

1. Evolution is not a "belief system". It is not attributed to or with any religion, creed or philosophy. As many accept evolution across a very wide range of cultures and religions ... including Christianity ... it offers to worldview, no tenets, no dogma, no scriptures, no morals, no virtues, no vices, no no nadda. Evolution is not a "belief system" neither is it a part of a larger "belief system"; Creationism, on the other hand, IS.
2. Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in creationists are next to zero. Almost all of them are affiliated with AIG or similar fringe movements. These "creation scientists" generally lack degrees in the field in which they are claiming expertise (a Dentist is not an Evolutionary Biologist); and most of the spokespersons for Creationism aren't even scientists at all (sorry, Mr. Hovind, but teaching High School science does not qualify you as a scientist). Scientists who truly practice science, however, unanimously (with minute outliers) agree that Evolution is the best explanation we have going for the origin of the species.
3. Evolution researchers use a myriad of scientific disciplines to achieve their conclusions; each peer reviewed and cross-referenced, cross-confirming each other; and these conclusions are based upon real world observation and experimentation; their findings are demonstrable in one way or another. These researchers are constantly bringing us new information about the wondrous biological diversity of our world. Creationists, on the other hand, bring us no new information, no new discoveries. While evolution is based on science, Creationism is based on religious texts scribed by people who didn't even have a clue about the earth's diversity of life; totally oblivious to microbiological organisms, populations of most species in the oceans, or many subterranean species. All the creationist can do is try to poke holes in; and mock; the hard work of dedicated scientists who are trying to truly find answers instead of pretending that they already have the answers.

Creationism and Evolution are as similar as "Harry Potter" and "Theory of General Relativity".

 

[NoorNoor]

That still doesn't mean that mysterious, unknown forces are caused by God. An explanation being consistent with an observation is good, but it's not enough to come to a conclusion. A sidewalk might be wet, and one might be able to posit that it is wet because it rained and that would be a consistent explanation: rain can make things wet and the sidewalk is wet. However, the sidewalk might actually be wet because of a burst pipe under the street. So an explanation being consistent with one's current knowledge of the situation is not enough to know that it is right.

You still didn't see the point of my argument. I am talking about weighing probabilities. You already acknowledged that the existence of God is a possibility that you don't eliminate. In your case, how do you compare the possibility of God's existence vs. non existence? I assume it would be 50% vs. 50% or simply you assume we don't know. My argument is, cosmic observations/data in addition to historical accounts (which I also consider as data), support the probability of God's existence.

The argument is not simply that we know that alternative laws cannot create our universe, it's that we don't know that they can create any universe at all.

It's possible that alternative laws may not create any universe at all. A single change and the model fails. But that would be a perfect design not a product of chance.

But it does mean that a given definition of something (like the definition of a triangle) is incompatible with any attempt to simultaneously given it a definition that is in direct contradiction to it (like having four sides). Nothing can simultaneously have two contradictory definitions, descriptions or properties, whether they are merely man-made or an aspect of nature itself.

A definition should exist before any contradiction would have a meaning. Definition would be a product of intelligence. In our case, the entire universe/life is the definition. The questions stays, who made the definition?

A variable is something that can vary. You don't know that universal constants can vary. Therefore, you don't know that they are variables.

Your hypothesis of an absolute unvarying constants with internal dependencies would imply a steady state eternal model which was already rejected long time ago.

Neither the observational evidence of a finite age universe nor the values of the individual forces can be explained by the hypothesis of a steady state eternal model with internal dependencies but rather its a dependency on an external influence at the creation point (the Big Bang)

 

[Blastcat]

Sapiens, I understand you don’t like “Discovery Institute”, the science teacher is unpublished and James Tour is just a chemist with no background in biology. this typical ad hominem would’t give merit to your case. James Tour was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World”. I would definitely give some credit to his opinion as a scientist. Hoping for future explanation (that may not happen) doesn’t change the fact that scientific challenges stay with no answer today. You consider 100 or 500 scientist doubting the evolution as small percentage but I definitely consider it as a serious challenge.

Here is what James Tour has to say about Evolutions vs. Creationism

And I quote:

"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek."

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topi...-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/

 

[McBell]

You still didn't see the point of my argument. I am talking about weighing probabilities. You already acknowledged that the existence of God is a possibility that you don't eliminate. In your case, how do you compare the possibility of God's existence vs. non existence? I assume it would be 50% vs. 50% or simply you assume we don't know. My argument is, cosmic observations/data in addition to historical accounts (which I also consider as data), support the probability of God's existence.


It's possible that alternative laws may not create any universe at all. A single change and the model fails. But that would be a perfect design not a product of chance.

A definition should exist before any contradiction would have a meaning. Definition would be a product of intelligence. In our case, the entire universe/life is the definition. The questions stays, who made the definition?


Your hypothesis of an absolute unvarying constants with internal dependencies would imply a steady state eternal model which was already rejected long time ago.

Neither the observational evidence of a finite age universe nor the values of the individual forces can be explained by the hypothesis of a steady state eternal model with internal dependencies but rather its a dependency on an external influence at the creation point (the Big Bang)

Are you ever going to show your math?
I mean, here you are asking for others to show their math when you have yet to show yours.