Actually, the multiverse is cheerfully beyond falsifiability

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 20, 2018

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg — soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From math prof Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:

Sean Carroll has a new paper out defending the Multiverse and attacking the naive Popperazi, entitled Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse. He also has a Beyond Falsifiability blog post here.

Much of the problem with the paper and blog post is that Carroll is arguing against a straw man, while ignoring the serious arguments about the problems with multiverse research.

…

the problem with the multiverse is that it’s an empty idea, predicting nothing. It is functioning not as what we would like from science, a testable explanation, but as an untestable excuse for not being able to predict anything. In defense of empty multiverse theorizing, Carroll wants to downplay the role of any conventional testability criterion in our understanding of what is science and what isn’t.More.

Downplaying testability is the whole point of postmodernism. Who is to judge?

And the multiverse is postmodern physics. Wait till it meets up with postmodern (algebra is racist) math.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Comments

OK terraforming expects to see simple organisms first to set the stage for the more complex organisms that come later. Bacteria not only make the O2 but they are also good filters, food sources and great for the soil. The design is in this universe so we infer the designer was also. That isn't such a difficult concept to grasp.ET_{February 2, 2018
February
02
Feb
2
02
2018
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

It accounts for the organization of fossils from simple to more complex.
You've just repeated yourself. I asked how, not if.
The bacteria need to make the O2, duh.
In your example, bacteria would represent a specific example of knowledge of how to make O2. There are other ways to make O2. The designer doesn't need to use it. So, we're back to "That's just what the designer must have wanted."
CR: Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prohibit us, and an abstract designer, from achieving it, is knowing how. CR: And, who’s to say that ID’s designer is bound by the laws of physics, anyway, given that it has no defined limitations. ET: Everything in this universe is bound by physics. So your straw man means nothing. But I am sure that it gives you comfort.
Except ID doesn't explicitly state the designer was "in this universe". Furthermore, getting anyone to update ID to explicitly state its designer was in this universe will be an extremely hard cell. So, it's not a necessary consequence of the theory itself. I don't know how this is such a difficult concept in respect to scientific theories.critical rationalist_{February 2, 2018
February
02
Feb
2
02
2018
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

I have no idea how that answers my challenge.
It accounts for the organization of fossils from simple to more complex.
So, what about terraforming and the order of least and most complex all at once, violates the laws of physics?
The bacteria need to make the O2, duh.
And, who’s to say that ID’s designer is bound by the laws of physics, anyway, given that it has no defined limitations.
Everything in this universe is bound by physics. So your straw man means nothing. But I am sure that it gives you comfort.ET_{February 1, 2018
February
02
Feb
1
01
2018
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

So what? Terraforming answers your challenge.
I have no idea how that answers my challenge. Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prohibit us, and an abstract designer, from achieving it, is knowing how. So, what about terraforming and the order of least and most complex all at once, violates the laws of physics? And, who's to say that ID's designer is bound by the laws of physics, anyway, given that it has no defined limitations. And, if you're going to appeal to that, as part of the explanation of ID the theory, then when should I expect ID, the theory, to explicitly state that is the case? Again, that will be quite the tough sell, for reasons I don't need to explain.critical rationalist_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

It’s unclear why that has to happen in least to most complex if the designer knew how.
So what? Terraforming answers your challenge.
Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant to my point that ID cannot explain any particular order over some other order, or appearing all at once.
It really doesn't have to explain any order. It explains the existence of living organisms. We infer terraforming was involved given the apparent order. We know that can change once we figure out what determines form, ie anatomy and physiology.
There could be.
There isn't
Take the knowledge of what transformations of raw materials would result in a prokaryotes.
That knowledge doesn't exist. There isn't anything to find and nothing to stumble upon. There is Spiegelman's Monster that still looms large, though. I bet those molecules have knowledge of that.ET_{January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Terraforming
What is required to terraform a plant? The necessary knowledge of what transformations of matter that would result in a planet with life. It's unclear why that has to happen in least to most complex if the designer knew how.
the order is illusory- a figment of your imagination
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant to my point that ID cannot explain any particular order over some other order, or appearing all at once. This is because ID's designer is abstract and has no limitations of what it knew, when it knew it, etc.
There isn’t any knowledge to build eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.
There could be. But that's not what neo-Darwinism suggests. Take the knowledge of what transformations of raw materials would result in a prokaryotes. There could be some knowledge of what transformations to perform to that knowledge that would result in the instructions to building eukaryotes from raw materials instead. That would represent transforming one instantiation of matter (the set of instructions to build prokaryotes) into another set of matter (the set of instructions to build eukaryotes). But that's contrary to Neo-darwnisnm, which says that knowledge did not exist yet, either. Rater the knowledge of how to build eukaryotes when through a process of variation and criticisms, to create genuinely new knowledge did not exist previously. That's what explains the order of least complex to most complex.critical rationalist_{January 28, 2018
January
01
Jan
28
28
2018
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Then my challenge should be easy: explain the order of appearance of organisms from least complex to most complex.
1- Terraforming 2- Terraforming & the order is illusory- a figment of your imagination 3- Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes. There isn't any knowledge to build eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.ET_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

1) Complex functional information is generated, in all cases where its origin is known, by conscious intelligent agents (humans), by a design process. No other examples of it exist in the known universe, as far as we know, except for biological objects, whose origin is the issue which is being debated.
The problem with this is, no one has formulated a "principle of induction", that actually works in a way that provide guidance, in practice. So, it's unclear how why you should assume that experience will continue, but others will not. Example? Let's focus on a relevant aspect of the above and try to "apply" induction to it.
Conscious intelligent agents capable of the process of design have complex material nervous systems. No other examples of conscious intelligent designers exist in the known universe, as far as we know, except those with complex material nervous systems.
How is that not an inductive inference in the sense you're referring to? Our experience does not tell us to accept one, but not the other because, again, no one has formulated a "principle of induction" that provides guidance as to what specific aspect of our experience will continue and which will not. If no such principle exits, then how can it provide guidance, in practice? How does that work? Please be specific.critical rationalist_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

IOWs you are saying that scientifically inferring the truth about some fundamental aspect of observable reality has no clear significance!
What would the "truth" that some inexplicable mind in some inexplicable realm designed an object via some inexplicable means and methods signify? Please be specific. My guess is that anything you might suggest requires assuming things about the designer that is utterly and completely absent it the supposedly scientific there of ID. Furthermore, some designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, that would result in just the right features, already present, doesn't sere an explanatory purpose. This is because one could just as efficiently state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins, that would result in just the right features, already present.critical rationalist_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

No problems with that. But again, knowledge is not the only factor. There are problems of resources, of available procedures, and maybe even of strategies.
Procedures and strategies are not knowledge?
However, I maintain that, at any definite moment and in any definite scenario, a designer will usually implement the simplest and cheapest solution.
And I’m suggesting that trend will not continue because the means by which we design and manufacture things will make the difference between the simplest and cheapest and customization negligible or even indistinguishable from noise.
There are many possible explanations:
That’s my point. None of them are necessary, that would in turn imply necessary consequences for the order we observe. Which leads me back to my challenge:
In fact, I challenge anyone to come up with anything better than ["that's just what the designer must have wanted"] that would actually hold up, if we try to take it seriously, for the purpose of criticism.
Still waiting...critical rationalist_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

You seem not to understand. We don’t assume the limitations, least of all to make predictions.
?You’re not disagreeing with me. ID hasn’t refuted Darwinism because of this very fact. Without limitations, no other explanation can be had beyond “That’s just what the designer wanted”.
As I said, all that is required for a designer to be able to design is: “that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the conscious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.”
It is? Lets attempt to take that seriously, for the purpose of criticism, by assuming it is true, in realty, and that all observations should conform to it. Does the medical community is consists of conscious intelligent beings? Yes. Are those beings capable of understanding and purpose? Does some subset of those beings intend to cure cancer? Yes. Do they have access to some interface to input functional information into matter? Yes. So, assuming that abstract definition of a designer, shouldn’t ID, as you just described it, predict we should already have that cure? If not why? IOW, it seems to me that there is some significant piece of the puzzle missing you would need to add, which isn’t included in your “requirements for a designer”.
You say that it is abstract: that’s not true. Being capable of conscious, intelligent, purposeful representations and being able to input those representations into matter is anything but abstract. It is a very positive set of features.
Positive as opposed to what? Are you suggesting there are less positive sets of features one could assume and still end up with a designer having “designed” an object? How did the designer end up with the representations that get “input into matter”? If I found the cure for cancer (representation) somewhere on the Internet, then “input them into matter” at a lab somewhere, did I “design” the cure for cancer? Does it matter where I got it?
Has this assumed designer limitations? We simply don’t know a priori.
You seem to be confused. I said that, without limitations, it’s unclear how you can make useful predictions about much of anything. As such, it’s unclear how significant it is to claim something was designed by ID’s designer. For example, if we take that definition seriously, as if were true in reality, for the purpose of criticism, IDs designer could also just as well have “design” things that look undesigned. Furthermore, it could have “designed” the world we observe, 30 seconds ago, with the appearance of age, implanted false memories, etc. Both of those things are equally compatible with the designer you just described because it doesn’t have any moral character, limits on what it knows, when it knew it, etc.
You seem to believe that it should not have them, that it should be an omnipresent god. But that is only your personal imagination. Nothing of that is in ID theory.
?Why would I argue that ID should not have something it already lacks? Specifically, if ID, the supposed scientific theory, doesn’t explicitly impose limitations then ID’s designer “does not have them”. That an observation about the theory, not a prescription. If ID is going to refute other theories, it needs necessary consequences that explain aspects of organisms in the biosphere equally well, in addition to explaining exceptions or problems with other theories. That would imply the opposite, that it should have limitations.
So, we know nothing of the designer except for what we have alredy said. But we can try to infer new information about it from the only legitimate scientific source: facts, the observable design. So, all the limitations that I have listed are reasonable inferences from the observation of biological designed objects. They are not assumptions, and they are not used to make predictions.
They are? Was it a reasonable inference to assume I had to walk to an from work, because someone experienced me doing so on Friday? No, it’s not. What if someone experienced me doing so every day for the length of my contract? No, that does’t follow either. Not using other options doesn’t mean I don’t have them at my disposal. You’d have to assume things about me than, supposedly we know nothing about ID’s designer. So, how do you know it had to do anything of the sort?
The basic assumptions about the designer, instead, can be the basis for predictions. For example, given that design is essentially the input of functional information into objects from conscious representations, the main prediction of ID is that we should be able to observe, or infer, that input.
I’m not following you. ID says we should predict that appearance of knowledge in objects that contain knowledge?
That’s exactly what I have tried to do with my OPs about functional information jumps in natural history. For example, in the transition to vertebrates.
There need not be a transition to vertebrates because all a designer supposedly needs is the properties you described above. And you don’t know enough about the designer to infer it lacked other options. At best, you can say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”.
And you don’t understand. This is not simply the negation of a theory. ID is not simply the negation of neo-darwinism. ID is a positive theory, which states that some observable property of objects, complex functional information, is observed only as the result of design. In the whole observable universe. That has nothing to do with neo-darwinism. It is a definite, positive theory about the connection between conscious intelligent representations and a definite observable result.
It is? Then my challenge should be easy: explain the order of appearance of organisms from least complex to most complex.
Why should we assume that it knows such or such, or that it prefers to design things from simple to complex, or vice versa?
The question is, why should’t we? Without limitations ID has no necessary consequences by which to make predictions about any particular order. That’s my point. What you want is to have your cake and eat it too. That’s irrational.
I have no reasons at all to favour one intepretation over the others, unless and until facts will offer some definite clue. That’s how science works.
That’s why you have no reason at all to favor the outcome of least to most complex. You don’t know enough about the designer.
Of course, the order from simpler to more complex is perfectly compatible with both ID and neo darwinism. But it is not the exclusive prediction of one or the other.
It is the necessary prediction of Neo-darwnism because the knowledge of how to build the most complex organisms requires the pre-existance of the representations of less complex organisms. It literally didn’t exist before then. As such, more complex organisms could not be constructed before then. It’s On the other hand, nothing limits what ID’s designer knew, when it knew it, etc. This includes possessing both the representations of the least and most complex organisms in the biosphere. If you say we cannot know whether it did or did not then it’s unclear how you cannot know it merely didn’t choose that order because it “that’s just what it wanted”.
The fact remains that at any moment a designer will probably prefer to do things in the cheapest and simplest way.
Which is assuming the future (or distant past) will resemble the past, which is Inductivism. Or that science is supposedly to maximize credence theories, but I’ve posted criticism of this elsewhere.
And it is not a problem of knowledge only. It is also a problem of resources.
They are the same problem because the problems of resources are solvable via knowledge. Again, more energy strikes the surface of the earth than the entire population uses in a year. What prevents us from utilizing it is knowing how. And that’s just a drop in the bucket given what is available in the entire universe. Have you heard of a Dyson sphere?critical rationalist_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Dionisio Simply start with an honest question :-}tribune7_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: Here I am! Anticipated (maybe my old age!) but not defeated! :) "Are those assumptions based on/associated with/related to some kind of empirical evidences?" Yes. The evidence comes from two different kinds of observations: 1) Complex functional information is generated, in all cases where its origin is known, by conscious intelligent agents (humans), by a design process. No other examples of it exist in the known universe, as far as we know, except for biological objects, whose origin is the issue which is being debated. This association is universal, and we have countless examples of it. It firmly establishes the connection between complex functional information and design. 2) If we go back to the definition of design, and if we observe ourselves (humans) in the process of design, we can objectively observe the following: a) Consciousness is necessary, of course, I would say by definition. Indeed, design is defined as the output of conscious representations into material objects. b) However, cosnciousness is not enough to generate complex design. To harness a great amount of information towards some specific function, and against all probabilistic barriers, intelligence is required. Now, intelligence is probably a difficult thing to define, but here I mean a very simple concept: the ability to have the subjective experience of meaning, to represent perceptions in intuitive terms like cause and effect, and in general all cognitive tools that transform simple perception into cognitive judgements. It's intelligence, as here defined, which allows us to understand, and therefore to find solutions not by mere chance, but guided by that understanding. That allows us to overcome the probabilistic barriers, because we don't have to rely on probability only, but also on our understanding. c) But that is still not enough. Generating functional information, harnessing understanding and information towards a function, also requires the intuitive experience of what a function is. Now, a function is simply a desired result, one that is chosen among many other possible ones. That desire is a feeling, and it's only that feeling that can motivate the final action of design. d) Finally, it is self-evident that all those things would be useless and powerless if the designer could not access some interface that allows him to act on matter. Human designers use their body, their hands, their muscles, through their personal consciousness-brain interface. The biological designer needs, of course, some similar interface to act. I have suggested many times that the essential nature of the interface between the consciousness of the biological designer and biological matter could indeed be similar to the essence of the interface between our personal consciousness and our brain, and that it is likely to be found at quantum level. So, as you can see, all the "assumptions" that I have listed are in reality derived from the definition itself of design, and from what we can dIrectly observe of the design process, and of its connection with complex functional information in material objects.gpuccio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

gpuccio @83:
ID is saying something very specific about the designer: 1) That he is a conscious agent (capable of subjective experiences) 2) That he is intelligent (capable of the subjective experience of understanding meaning) 3) That he is purposeful (capable of the subjective experience of feeling desires) 4) That he is capable of inputting information into objects, by some interface between his consciousness and biological matter
Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

tribune7, FYI (in case you're not aware of this), anticipating GP's point, with greater simplicity and less words, is quite an achievement, at least in the area of ID-related explanations. Please, without pressure, would you mind to share how you did it? Or at least give us a hint. :) In my case, the best I can do is read -at my slow pace- GP's insightful OPs/commentaries and enjoy so much technical and conceptual learning on ID-related topics. In addition, I usually ask a couple of dumb questions that he graciously answers with as much detail as required for the explanations to be clear. BTW, after seeing that I noted your good comment @74 several posts earlier than GP did (79 vs. 85) I'm tempted to pat myself on the back, because perhaps that could count as an instance of anticipating GP's point? :) Just noticed GP hasn't responded my question @73. :)Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Thanks gp :-)tribune7_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

tribune7 at #74: Thank you for anticipating my point. And with greater simplicity and less words, I believe! :) That's efficient design! :)gpuccio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

critical:
“An intelligent process” is extremely vague.
True but that is the nature of the investigation. We may never know exactly how the design was implemented.
How does it work?
We can use our engineering practices as a staring point if it helps.
If ID’s designer is abstract, in that it presents no explanation as to how it actually archives it’s goal then it’s unclear how you can say other causes do not operate on a similar principle, which would result in the appearance of design.
If someone can demonstrate such a thing then the design inference is falsified. That is how it works. If nature, operating freely, could produce Stonehenges (for example) we wouldn't be able to say that the one west of Amesbury (England) was intentionally designed. We would need more evidence than just the structure.
Furthermore, exactly what purpose?
That's for us to figure out. And we can't do that unless we start looking.
And what significance does would any such purpose have?
It could have all of the significance in the universe.
Having some inexplicable purpose that we cannot comprehend doesn’t seem to be very helpful, in practice.
Your straw men aren't very helpful. Would it be significant that living organisms did have a software of sorts that runs how cells and organisms operate? I think it would be Knowing there is a purpose to our existence should unite us so we can figure it out. That would be very significant.ET_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: You said, at #56:
Given that ID’s supposedly says nothing about the designer, then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed. What necessary predictions can be made based on that conclusion, such as the order of appearance of organisms?
And, at #77, you answered tribune7's rightful puzzlement reiterating that you are serious in saying that! Well, your statement is definitely amazing in its arrogance and lack of sense. Let's see. First of all, I want to clarify explicitly what it mean to say that something is designed. I will quote here my definition, taken from my old OP, "Defining design". https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/defining-design/ "Design is a process where a conscious agent subjectively represents in his own consciousness some form and then purposefully outputs that form, more or less efficiently, to some material object. We call the process “design”. We call the conscious agent who subjectively represents the initial form “designer”. We call the material object, after the process has taken place, “designed object”." OK, that should be clear enough. According to that definition, any specific form or configuration of a material object is either designed or not designed. There can be no ambiguity, if we know how it originated. Now, let's assume for a moment that biological objects are designed. It is possible, after all, otherwise we would not be here discussing if it is true. We know, or at least you should know, because I have tried to explain it to you in all possible ways, that ID infers, by the presence of complex functional information, that some object is designed. IOWs that it originated from a design process. You go on with your wrong statement that ID says nothing about the designer. That is completely false. Of course, ID says that the designer is a designer, IOWs that it has the essential properties that allow a design process. Therefore, as I have said to you many times, ID is saying something very specific about the designer: 1) That he is a conscious agent (capable of subjective experiences) 2) That he is intelligent (capable of the subjective experience of understanding meaning) 3) That he is purposeful (capable of the subjective experience of feeling desires) 4) That he is capable of inputting information into objects, by some interface between his consciousness and biological matter And you say that this is nothing? However, let's go back to our mental experiment. So, we are assuming that biological objects are designed, Which is certainly possible. Now, we infer, by the presence in them of complex functional information, that they are designed. Which, if our assumption is true, is certainly true. And we can say of the designer only what I have already listed, and nothing more. So, while we can certainly make predictions from those basic assumptions, we cannot make predictions from other features of the designer, because we simply don't know them. And we don't like to just imagine things, like neo-darwinists do all the time. Now, my simple point is: In this hypothetical scenario, you, with your "brilliant" and self-assured reasoning, would still maintain that having inferred the truth about the origin of biological objects "has no clear significance"! IOWs you are saying that scientifically inferring the truth about some fundamental aspect of observable reality has no clear significance! That's simple folly. Your way of thinking is arrogant, wrong, and obstinately biased. Of course inferring the truth about something is always a major step towards a correct scientific knowledge. There can be no exceptions to that. When we understand what is true, we are on the right way to get further correct understanding. It is not important if we can, at present, use that truth to make further detailed predictions, or if we will have to wait, get more facts, or to reason further and better, to do that. Truth is truth. If we believe something that is not true, we will only find obstacles in our search for further truth. So, the point of inferring if biological objects are designed or not is extremely important, as everybody in the world, except maybe you, seems to understand. Because the definition of design is very clear, and has no ambiguities. Therefore, some object is either designed or not designed. That's why we are here, discussing passionately with our friends from the other side. Because it is important. Both us and them know that all to well. Except you, it seems. You have the courage to state boldly that it is not important, that it has no significance. Of course tribune7 is puzzled! Puzzled is an understatement. And what is your justification to state that knowing the truth has no significance? That we "cannot make predictions about the order of appearance of organisms"? Yes, to say that I am puzzled is really a vast understatement..gpuccio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

CR purpose of killing thousands of people. Thousands of people are killed. Is it significant to determine if it was by design or by some other means?tribune7_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

@ET
Well CR, if you are not kidding then you are willfully ignorant. Saying something was the result of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes. And for another it points to a purpose.
"An intelligent process" is extremely vague. How does it work? If ID's designer is abstract, in that it presents no explanation as to how it actually archives it's goal then it's unclear how you can say other causes do not operate on a similar principle, which would result in the appearance of design. Furthermore, exactly what purpose? How can you tell that that purpose is? And what significance does would any such purpose have? Being abstract, it's unclear why should I care about any purpose, if you could determine it. Terrorists build bombs for the purpose of killing thousands of people. Does that mean that people are somehow obligated to be killed by them? Having some inexplicable purpose that we cannot comprehend doesn't seem to be very helpful, in practice.critical rationalist_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

CR, given your embarrassingly false claim that both QM and GR "completely and repeatedly disagree with actual experimental tests", and your pathetic attempt to backpedal from that embarrassingly false claim, I think you would do very well to learn in silence for a while. Perhaps a decade or two. Or better yet, perhaps you should take up some harmless activity that is not associated with science in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. Science is definitely not your cup of tea. Perhaps underwater basket weaving would be more your speed: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z6tf5l_6zJw/maxresdefault.jpgbornagain77_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

tribune7 @74, Valid points. Thanks. However, don't expect your interlocutor to understand what you wrote. Understanding requires the will to do it. In this case it looks as though your interlocutor lacks it. But that might be my wrong perception.Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Well CR, if you are not kidding then you are willfully ignorant. Saying something was the result of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes. And for another it points to a purpose. That is just for a startET_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

@Tribune7
CR: [if "having been designed" has no necessary consequences because the designer is abstract] then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed. T: You are kidding right?
No, I'm not.critical rationalist_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

@BA77 To use an analogy, imagine if while driving, you have two maps. One map only works while driving forward and the other map only works while driving in reverse. By nature of supposedly being a map, it shouldn't matter what direction you're driving. Regardless of the fact that the forwards map has never been observed to be wrong when navigation forwards and the reverse map has never been observed to be wrong when navigation in reverse, the observation that you must switch maps indicates both maps are false because they contradict each other. You just haven't figured out they are false yet. They are approximations. In the above analogy, Quantum mechanics is the forwards map and General Relativity is the reverse map. The observation that we must switch between them tells us they are false.critical rationalist_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Eugene S @35:
“God is omnipotent after all. He can do whatever He wants. He wanted to create a world in the way He wanted. He interferes without any difficulty when, where and in what manner He so desires.”
This very wise observation by Dr. Eugene S. reminds me of a real situation that took place in my work. The director of software development, who was the mind behind the successful product that my employer provided to many engineering organizations, was also the project leader for the given product. When his subordinate software developers came to his office to present the results of their work on their task assignments, the boss reviewed requirements, detected and pointed at problems, requested corrections, approved changes, discussed problems, suggested solutions. At least on one occasion, when a new GUI was presented, the boss requested changing the dialog box layout. When someone curiously inquired why, the boss calmly responded "I like it that way". That's it. There was no functional difference, it was just a matter of personal preference. Since he was the one running the show and calling the shots, he had the last saying on the issues related to the product that was his "baby" since he imagined it long before it was described to the rest of us. This brings up the points of sovereignty and free will. We could not ask him to design it differently, unless there was a valid reason, but since he knew much more about the whole engineering design process than the rest of us did, we couldn't argue on the basis of our ignorance. He could say there's a valid reason for doing things as per his request, but we couldn't understand it because we lacked the knowledge or expertise required to understand. And this was the case of a human designer, with all his inherent imperfections. Therefore, when he said that he wanted something done certain way, that was the rule. We have free will, but it's limited. God's will is sovereign. It's interesting to see that in a mostly scientific discussion, many times the atheists are the ones who bring up God into the discussion first. Why? Lack of solid scientific arguments? What else?Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

CR then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed. What's the point of knowing that light being reflected, refracted and dispersed by water droplets causes rainbows? Solving one mystery leads to knowledge that can be used to solve more practical mysteries. More relevant: You long believe something to have occurred by chance. You then apply a test and you find, whoa, it's designed. Don't you think that can be a life changing experience overturning your entire world view? Don't you think that can be kind of significant?tribune7_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @61:
“…the only things assumed are consciousness, intelligence, purpose, and some interface to biological matter. Nothing else. The rest are inferences from facts.”
Are those assumptions based on/associated with/related to some kind of empirical evidences?Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

KF @7: "When atheists have faith/ideological commitments they dress them up in lab coats."Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply