What is your best evidence for a god?

[leroy]

Except it obviously doesn't because the designer would part of what exists and is the way it is. Also, if the designer was different, and didn't want to make this sort of universe, we wouldn't exist, so the designer would be just as "fine tuned" for our existence as the universe. You haven't solved either problem, you've just added a blind guess that's moved them about a bit.

And by your logic, “round earthers” also added a blind guess, by invoking a globe....

But anyway you said that a message in the universe would strongly support intelligent design…… so why wouldn’t you say “well adding a designer wouldn’t solve the problem” for the same reasons you explained earlier?

 

[ratiocinator]

And by your logic, “round earthers” also added a blind guess, by invoking a globe....

Again the globe does answer the question, your god idea doesn't answer the questions you've started with, namely, why things exit are are as they are and why they are conducive to our sort of life.

But anyway you said that a message in the universe would strongly support intelligent design…… so why wouldn’t you say “well adding a designer wouldn’t solve the problem” for the same reasons you explained earlier?

An actual message would stand out as an artefact (especially if it was in a language invented on Earth billions of years after "creation"). The problem with the argument from design is that is actually quite easy to tell the difference between a manufactured artefact and the natural world.

What you're doing it latching on to an unknown and calling 'design' (because if it were different we wouldn't exist) while ignoring (amongst other things) that if you were given a blank sheet of paper and asked to design a universe for life, you'd be very unlikely to make one which is almost entirely hostile to life except for a tiny speck that appears after about 13.5 billion years.

 

[Heyo]

My view is that evolution almost certainly occurred, (we share a common ancestor with other species) but we don’t know which mechanisms where responsible. Any disagreement from your part?

The mechanisms are called "random mutation" and "natural selection" and have been observed down to the genetic level. There are still some questions about details and importance of different ways of mutations but biologists have pretty much figured out the basics.

 

[leroy]

The mechanisms are called "random mutation" and "natural selection" and have been observed down to the genetic level. There are still some questions about details and importance of different ways of mutations but biologists have pretty much figured out the basics.

you will find disagreement in the literature, some would say that “nonrandom mutations” (or nonrandom variations) are the main mechanism, things like transposons, natural genetic engineering, epigenetics etc.

Others would say that neutral mutations and genetic drift are that main force.

The point is that there is controversy in the scientific community, different scientists propose different mechanisms, and nobody claims to know with 100% certainty… any disagreement from your part?

 

[leroy]

Again the globe does answer the question, your god idea doesn't answer the questions you've started with, namely, why things exit are are as they are and why they are conducive to our sort of life.

Design does answer to the question on why we have such an unlikely pattern….. Namely designers don’t have to worry about statistical improbability.

An actual message would stand out as an artefact (especially if it was in a language invented on Earth billions of years after "creation"). The problem with the argument from design is that is actually quite easy to tell the difference between a manufactured artefact and the natural world.

What you are doing is latching to an unknown designer (if stars/dust/clouds would have been different we would not be wondering on why we see this message in English)

The point that I am making is that by your logic, not even the message would count as evidence

What you're doing it latching on to an unknown and calling 'design' (because if it were different we wouldn't exist) while ignoring (amongst other things) that if you were given a blank sheet of paper and asked to design a universe for life, you'd be very unlikely to make one which is almost entirely hostile to life except for a tiny speck that appears after about 13.5 billion years.

The reason why I am ignoring it is because it’s irrelevant, feel free to formulate your own argument against design using the hostility of life as your premise.

Once you formulate the argument I would-be happy to answer, but whether if I answer successfully or not is irrelevant to the soundness of the FT argument.

Let me help you

Premsie 1 most of the universe is hostile to life

Premise 2 ??????

Therefore the universe was not designed.

So in your mind, what would premise 2 be? So that I can address the argument? (but it woudl be an independent argument, not a refutation to FT)

 

[Heyo]

you will find disagreement in the literature, some would say that “nonrandom mutations” (or nonrandom variations) are the main mechanism, things like transposons, natural genetic engineering, epigenetics etc.

Others would say that neutral mutations and genetic drift are that main force.

The point is that there is controversy in the scientific community, different scientists propose different mechanisms, and nobody claims to know with 100% certainty… any disagreement from your part?

I haven't found anyone arguing that non-random mutations is the main mechanism but there surely is a discussion about the frequency of epigenetic guarding mechanisms, horizontal gene transfer in animals and genetic repair mechanisms.
I just don't see a discussion how these mechanisms were designed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Design does answer to the question on why we have such an unlikely pattern….. Namely designers don’t have to worry about statistical improbability.

But we don't know what the statistics and probabilities are (we simply don't know why the constants are what they are - it's a mystery, a gap in our knowledge). You're also ignoring the same 'logic' applied to any designer. It doesn't even solve the supposed improbability problem, it just moves it to an 'improbable' designer (we don't know why the designer is the way it is).

The point that I am making is that by your logic, not even the message would count as evidence

I've explained why it would.

The reason why I am ignoring it is because it’s irrelevant, feel free to formulate your own argument against design using the hostility of life as your premise.

Why? I can't rule out that the universe is designed, I just don't think you've made any kind of case for it. One of your premises appears to be a guess about improbability (which a designer doesn't really solve anyway), and the hostility to life of most of the universe appears to be inconsistent with a universe deliberately designed for life. In short, it's just a weak argument.

And, of course, it isn't an argument for a god anyway - you'd need more evidence or reasoning to get from a designed universe to a god and from a god to a specific one...

 

[leroy]

I haven't found anyone arguing that non-random mutations is the main mechanism but there surely is a discussion about the frequency of epigenetic guarding mechanisms, horizontal gene transfer in animals and genetic repair mechanisms.
I just don't see a discussion how these mechanisms were designed.

The implication is clear.

If organisms evolve mainly through these complex non random mechanisms then where do these mechanisms came from?

 

[leroy]

But we don't know what the statistics and probabilities are (we simply don't know why the constants are what they are - it's a mystery, a gap in our knowledge). You're also ignoring the same 'logic' applied to any designer. It doesn't even solve the supposed improbability problem, it just moves it to an 'improbable' designer (we don't know why the designer is the way it is).

Well that silly objection could be used to refute your message.

Imagine we find a message in the universe and I answer, "well a designer doesnt solve the problem of where the message came from, it just moves it to an improbable designer"

How would you respond to that objection?

,

and the hostility to life of most of the universe appears to be inconsistent with a universe deliberately designed for life. In short, it's just a weak argument

.

Well then formulate your own testable and falsifiable argument using the hostility of life as a premise.

And, of course, it isn't an argument for a god anyway - you'd need more evidence or reasoning to get from a designed universe to a god and from a god to a specific one...

Granted, the argument doesn't aspire to get to God, the intent of the argument is to show that there is a designer (that may or may not be God)

Thats like saying ohhhh but the theory of evolution doesn't explain the origin of life....... Would you accept that objection against evolution?

 

[ratiocinator]

Imagine we find a message in the universe and I answer, "well a designer doesnt solve the problem of where the message came from, it just moves it to an improbable designer"

How would you respond to that objection?

I've already explained this - a message would stand out as an artefact.

Well then formulate your own testable and falsifiable argument using the hostility of life as a premise.

Again, why would I bother? You haven't produced anything like a "testable or falsifiable argument" for design. I also think you're getting a bit confused. It's (scientific) hypotheses that need to be testable and falsifiable, arguments need to be sound (if they're deductive) or cogent (if they're inductive).

You appear to be attempting an inductive argument for design but, as I said, (what appear to be) your premises are questionable to say the least.

 

[leroy]

I've already explained this - a message would stand out as an artefact.

So what? By your logic the creator of the message would be more complex than the message...... Therefore by your standards this shoukd count as an objection.

Again, why would I bother? You haven't produced anything like a "testable or falsifiable argument" for design. I also think you're getting a bit confused. It's (scientific) hypotheses that need to be testable and falsifiable, arguments need to be sound (if they're deductive) or cogent (if they're inductive).

You appear to be attempting an inductive argument for design but, as I said, (what appear to be) your premises are questionable to say the least.

Sure this is my testable and falsifiable argument

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.

Premise 2: The fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design

Note that whether if most of the universe is hostile to life or not is irrelevant and does not refute any of the 2 premises. That is why your comment on the hostility of the universe is irrelevant for this particular argument.


Obviously you are free to provide your own argument using the hostility of the universe as a premise

 

[ratiocinator]

So what? By your logic the creator of the message would be more complex than the message...... Therefore by your standards this shoukd count as an objection.

You're mixing up different arguments. A message would be good evidence for design (of the universe) but a designer isn't an ultimate explanation for why things exist and are they way they are (because it would be part of what exists).

Sure this is my testable and falsifiable argument

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.

Premise 2: The fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design

Note that whether if most of the universe is hostile to life or not is irrelevant and does not refute any of the 2 premises. That is why your comment on the hostility of the universe is irrelevant for this particular argument.

It isn't testable or falsifiable - how would you test it? It is, however, a valid deduction (if its premises were true, then its conclusion would follow) but premiss 2 is (at best) a guess, so it's far from being sound.

The point about the hostility to life is not directly relevant to that argument as stated but if you were going to go on to ague that it's designed for life (as opposed to having lots of pretty stars, for example), then it isn't very well designed.

 

[Heyo]

The implication is clear.

If organisms evolve mainly through these complex non random mechanisms then where do these mechanisms came from?

Simple: they evolved.

 

[leroy]

Simple: they evolved.

Its a chicken and egg problem

If things evolve by these complex mechanisms, how did these complex mechanisms evolve?

 

[Heyo]

Its a chicken and egg problem

If things evolve by these complex mechanisms, how did these complex mechanisms evolve?

No, it is not a chicken and egg problem. Since there are simple mechanisms, there is a way for complex mechanisms to evolve from simple mechanisms, no matter how much modern species rely on complex mechanisms as long as it is less than 100%.
Do I really have to point that out?

 

[leroy]

No, it is not a chicken and egg problem. Since there are simple mechanisms, there is a way for complex mechanisms to evolve from simple mechanisms, no matter how much modern species rely on complex mechanisms as long as it is less than 100%.
Do I really have to point that out?

Well can you show that a complex mechanism like epigenetics can evolve via a simpler mechanism?

 

[leroy]

You're mixing up different arguments. A message would be good evidence for design (of the universe) but a designer isn't an ultimate explanation for why things exist and are they way they are (because it would be part of what exists).

Nobody is claiming that design is an ultimate explanation, just that it is the best explanation.

My point is that alllllll the objections that you have presented, would also appply if we find a message

It isn't testable or falsifiable - how would you test it? It is, however, a valid deduction (if its premises were true, then its conclusion would follow) but premiss 2 is (at best) a guess, so it's far from being sound.

Premise 2 is likelly to be true given the evidence that we have

Chance hypothesis including "multiverse," anthropic principle " we simple where lucky etc are refuted by the boltzman brain paradox


Physical necesity is unlikelly because we are talking about dozens of independent values, non of which are predicted by current physical theories.


But this is all testable stuff and open to scientific research.

For example when we discover the deeper laws of physics there are 2 possibilities

1 more fine tunning problems will appear

2 some (or all) fine tuning problems will be solved

If 1 happens to be true the FT argument become stronger if 2 then the argument would become weaker.

The point about the hostility to life is not directly relevant to that argument as stated but if you were going to go on to ague that it's designed for life (as opposed to having lots of pretty stars, for example), then it isn't very well designed.

Sure, I wouldn't claim that the universe was designed to optimize life, nor to create as much life as possible


That is like saying.... If pyramids in Egypt where build to burry Pharoahs then why did they build such a big and complex structure? Surely you can think of better abd more efficient ways to build tombs......... But you wouldn't say something as sillly as "therefore they weren't designed"

 

[ratiocinator]

Nobody is claiming that design is an ultimate explanation, just that it is the best explanation.

My point is that alllllll the objections that you have presented, would also appply if we find a message

Again, you seem to be getting very confused. A message would be evidence for design but design doesn't solve any of the problems of fine tuning, or why things exist and are the way they are.

Premise 2 is likelly to be true given the evidence that we have

You haven't provided any evidence. It's just a guess at best, and more likely wishful thinking.

Chance hypothesis including "multiverse," anthropic principle " we simple where lucky etc are refuted by the boltzman brain paradox

Again, you seem to have got confused here. Boltzmann brains don't have any direct connection to the multiverse, they arise if you have thermal equilibrium for a long (perhaps infinite) time, which may be a problem even with just one universe (if that's it's final state). You also mentioned simple universes (just one star or something) which again don't follow from multiverse hypotheses. As Lee Smolin has pointed out, if you "fine tune" the constants so that life is possible, it also gives you a large universe with lots of stars (and hence black holes).

Physical necesity is unlikelly because we are talking about dozens of independent values, non of which are predicted by current physical theories.

The number has no bearing on the issue. Either an underlying theory will explain them or not, it also may or my not indicate a multiverse is likely or not. This is nothing but a guessing game - we just don't know, which is why this is basically a "god of the gaps" argument.

 

[Heyo]

Well can you show that a complex mechanism like epigenetics can evolve via a simpler mechanism?

The Evolution of Epigenetics

 

[leroy]

Again, you seem to be getting very confused. A message would be evidence for design but design doesn't solve any of the problems of fine tuning, or why things exist and are the way they are.

If stars of a given galaxy are ordered such that they form letters and sentences in English it would be obvious that this pattern of stars was design right?...... my point is that any skeptic can use the same arguments that you are using to reject the design hypothesis “science is incomplete, maybe there is an unknown law that organics stars in words and sentences” or “anthropic principle, if there wasn’t a bunch of words and sentences, we wouldn’t be wondering about this patterm or "there is a multiverse, we simply happen to live in one which such a pattern of words and sentences…. So ether your arguments are flawed or, such a message wouldn’t be evidence for design. Which on is it?

Again, you seem to have got confused here. Boltzmann brains don't have any direct connection to the multiverse, they arise if you have thermal equilibrium for a long (perhaps infinite) time, which may be a problem even with just one universe (if that's it's final state).

If there is a potentially infinite number of universes (or just many universes) there would be more simple universes (just 1 star and 1 planet) than complex universes like ours, and even more bolzman brains.

So if you claim that we live in multiverse and we are just a random member, it would be much, mucho more likely that we live in a simple universe and that you are just having a strange dream where the universe is big and complex……. Obviously the point is that a multiverse leads to this Reductio ad absurdum , which is why you should reject the multiverse (or any other chance hypothesis) as an explanation.




.

As Lee Smolin has pointed out, if you "fine tune" the constants so that life is possible, it also gives you a large universe with lots of stars (and hence black holes).

Lee Smolin hypothesis has been proven to be wrong, besides all the speculative and untestable stuff, the issue is that the most efficient way to create many black holes (and therefore many universes) if by optimizing the amount of primordial black holes, (not through star formation)……… this causes a bias against life permitting universe. …………….. if you what to argue that Lee Smolin´s hypothesis is better than design please let me know and I can justify my position with more detail

The number has no bearing on the issue. Either an underlying theory will explain them or not, it also may or my not indicate a multiverse is likely or not. This is nothing but a guessing game - we just don't know, which is why this is basically a "god of the gaps" argument.

My issue is that you seem to be assuming that the fine tunning problem will be solved by future discoveries or as we understand the deeper and fundamental laws………. But it could also be the exact opposite, maybe future discoveries will make the problem even worst. …… So at what point would your “it’s a God of the Gaps” response would fail?.... what possible discovery could be made, that you couldn’t respond by “its just a God of the gaps”

is basically a "god of the gaps" argument

Well it’s too convenient, any evidence can be dismissed by “it’s a God of the Gaps” …. Evenif you saw a miracle with your own eyes and video tape it, you can always say “well it’s a God of the gaps” “maybe there is an unknown law that caused this apparent miracle”