The design argument

Originally posted by no1marauder
Claiming it will all be worked out in the future seems quite a leap of faith.

If it's not then L.H.C. will go down as the most expensive white elephant in history. Supersymmetry is pretty compelling, minimally coupled models are ruled out - but really it should be maximal. There's a tendency towards monism in physics, so yes, there is a leap of faith - but it's based on the success of finding a huge number of particles in the immediate post war era and the theorists then managing to tie them all together into the Standard Model. It's not that unreasonable to think that the process will continue.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's an ultimate conclusion based on the evidence. We know there was a Big Bang and the present cosmological evidence says there will be a Big Crunch.

Bell's Theorem and quantum entanglement are part of science, are they not?

No, current evidence indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so a big crunch is ruled out. However if you want a cyclic universe then consider a big rip. Dark energy drives the expansion and has the odd property that it increases with the expansion - so the expansion increases exponentially. This means that eventually the entropy per causally connected volume is effectively zero. In a big rip scenario the expansion eventually become so intense that things like protons are pulled apart - this implies particle production (as quarks cannot be isolated the energy required is enough to produce a quark anti-quark pair) so as a piece of handwavium one can imagine that such a universe would look like the inflationary phase that is believed to have happened in our universe - so if you want a life death rebirth cycle it's available that way.

Originally posted by JS357
My gut feel WRT the argument, is that arguing for (or against) ID on the basis of science is an example of the logical fallacy of unfalsifiability. (By way of clarifying, I am not saying that pointing out this fallacy supports rejecting ID. It supports concluding that this is not a scientific topic.)

My gut feel WRT ID itself is that it is an idea th ...[text shortened]... d, or see a way to avoid the fallacy mentioned above and see evidence of ID, my view may change.

My gut feel WRT ID itself is that it is an idea that depends on already having faith in a creator god.

So you dismiss the possibility of ID because it can only be evidence a belief in a creator god a priori ?

Fred Holye, I found, was an atheist that followed the evidence to possible implications. Anthony Flew also did. I don't think you can say these were believers in a god prior to wrestling with the evidence of ID.

When I introspect I find no such faith.

I don't ask that you have to.
I simply ask about your honest intuitive sense.

So I do not believe that ID is true, but to further clarify, this does not warrant any claim on my part that it it is untrue. I just leave it where it is, as an idea.

So far what I understand is - " All ID belief is based upon a previous faith in a god. So for that reason I dismiss ID as viable." [paraphrase]

Are you saying atheism has to be the default neutral position and also has to be the conclusion of any consideration of the evidence ? And without that starting point AND ending point the evidence should not be considered?

If I either come to have faith in a creator god, or see a way to avoid the fallacy mentioned above and see evidence of ID, my view may change.

I have not agreed that the unfalsifiable objection is a fallacy with ID science. I'll look into that. You seem to be convinced ID is not falsifiable.

For argument's sake - CAN something unfalsifiable possibly be TRUE ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's an ultimate conclusion based on the evidence. We know there was a Big Bang and the present cosmological evidence says there will be a Big Crunch.

Bell's Theorem and quantum entanglement are part of science, are they not?

Seem to be. But scientific ideas can be adopted with religious fervor. Some people seem to treat biological evolution that way.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, current evidence indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so a big crunch is ruled out. However if you want a cyclic universe then consider a big rip. Dark energy drives the expansion and has the odd property that it increases with the expansion - so the expansion increases exponentially. This means that eventually the entropy ...[text shortened]... ve happened in our universe - so if you want a life death rebirth cycle it's available that way.

Thanks I wasn't aware of that theoretical possibility.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I really don't understand the extreme emotional reaction some people are having.

That would be strictly an inference made on your part.

Why would I feel " VERY special"?

I was thinking that you'd be able to put together the implication that you are the result of "divine intervention" rather than of random chance, hence making you " ...[text shortened]... back to a multiverse explanation for the issues raised, why not simply say so?[/b]

It wasn't.[/b]

I see nothing "absurd" about the Rick's analogy. All it is saying is that evidence must be examined rather than merely saying we can't know something because its present state could have arisen from different causes. That seems intuitively obvious.

Originally posted by sonship

My gut feel WRT ID itself is that it is an idea that depends on already having faith in a creator god.

So you dismiss the possibility of ID because it can only be evidence a belief in a creator god a priori ?

Fred Holye, I found, was an atheist that followed the evidence to possible implications. Anthony Flew also did. ...[text shortened]... ot falsifiable.

For argument's sake - CAN something unfalsifiable possibly be TRUE ?

Please take what I said at face value. I am frankly surprised that you see in my words any such things as "dismiss," "not viable," "atheism has to be the default neutral position," -- this is just plain wrong. If ID floats your boat (is viable for you), fine so long as floating your boat doesn't require you to sink mine.

Originally posted by sonship

My gut feel WRT ID itself is that it is an idea that depends on already having faith in a creator god.

So you dismiss the possibility of ID because it can only be evidence a belief in a creator god a priori ?

Fred Holye, I found, was an atheist that followed the evidence to possible implications. Anthony Flew also did. ...[text shortened]... ot falsifiable.

For argument's sake - CAN something unfalsifiable possibly be TRUE ?

"I have not agreed that the unfalsifiable objection is a fallacy with ID science. I'll look into that. You seem to be convinced ID is not falsifiable.

For argument's sake - CAN something unfalsifiable possibly be TRUE ?"

Separate reply: I was responding to a specific statement by No1 that absorbed the big bang and crunch theories into ID. Absorbing any scientific theory or data that is presented into ID makes ID unfalsifiable.

And I didn't say unfalsifiable ideas can't be true. I said they aren't scientific. That is neither a claim that the idea is untrue, nor is it a value judgement on the quality of the idea. It just means we shouldn't expect to determine the truth of the idea using scientific evidence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have fully explained my objection to the Lottery Fallacy.

Not in a satisfactory manner.

Most of your questions are based on you not paying attention to the substance of my posts.
That doesn't excuse avoiding answering them.

The description of "black marble" as opposed to the "white marble" is given in the link I already provided.
I am uninterested in links, I have asked you directly. Try answering it.

The description of what physical properties (almost all fundamental forces) make the universe "life possible" and thus a "black marble" was given all the way back on page 2.
But why have you painted universes with 'life possible' black and all other universes white? It seems to me that you are painting the winning lottery ticket black after it has won.

And the 10,000 francs analogy was explained as clearly as possible.
But without any justification whatsoever as to why it is an accurate analogy. All you seemed to want to do was come up with fantastic odds. To what end? For what reason?

One must go beyond the rhetorical gamesmanship and actually objectively examine the evidence something you absolutely refuse to do
Where did I refuse to objectively examine the evidence?

(just like the person who would say that maybe the husband won because of chance and puts his hands over his ears when someone mentions Rick's actions).
Wow. So that whole analogy had nothing to do with the whole lottery thing, it was trying to say that I don't look at the evidence? No wonder you are not making any sense.

Please actually read some of my posts this time.
Please actually answer some of my questions instead of your somewhat ridiculous attempts at avoiding the issues. Seriously, if you continue posting so called analogies for no other reason than to make false claims about my refusal to look at evidence then I probably will stop reading your posts. If on the other hand you think the analogy was genuinely relevant to the discussion, please explain why you think it is so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thanks I wasn't aware of that theoretical possibility.

A big rip's been suggested, the extrapolation to universe rebirth via nucleons being pulled apart is me extrapolating, although according to Wikipedia there's a similar idea that doesn't rely on the presence of particles in it. Penrose has another scenario with a life cycle that depends on the fermionic content of the universe being destroyed by black holes which sort of resets the scale factor. They're described on this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see nothing "absurd" about the Rick's analogy. All it is saying is that evidence must be examined rather than merely saying we can't know something because its present state could have arisen from different causes. That seems intuitively obvious.

Then let's look at the evidence from the analogy I gave you:
1) The chances of your existence are exceedingly small.
2) You exist.

Here's what the evidence tells me: Since the evidence would be the same regardless of whether you exist as the result of divine intervention or of random chance, there is no persuasive evidence that you are the result of divine intervention rather than that of random chance.

Similarly, since the evidence would be the same regardless of whether the universe exists as the result of divine intervention or of random chance, there is no persuasive evidence that it is the result of divine intervention rather than that of random chance.

What does the evidence tell you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not in a satisfactory manner.

[b]Most of your questions are based on you not paying attention to the substance of my posts.
That doesn't excuse avoiding answering them.

The description of "black marble" as opposed to the "white marble" is given in the link I already provided.
I am uninterested in links, I have asked you directly. Try an ...[text shortened]... ink the analogy was genuinely relevant to the discussion, please explain why you think it is so.[/b]

You obviously haven't read my posts anyway, so you are welcome to continue not reading them.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Then let's look at the evidence from the analogy I gave you:
1) The chances of your existence are exceedingly small.
2) You exist.

Here's what the evidence tells me: Since the evidence would be the same regardless of whether you exist as the result of divine intervention or of random chance, there is no persuasive evidence that you are the result of ...[text shortened]... of divine intervention rather than that of random chance.

What does the evidence tell you?

I don't think that counter entirely works. Even if the chances of me existing are unbelievably remote, the chances of someone like me existing given a starting point around 1,700 A.D. or so are pretty high. These cosmological arguments aren't about how unlikely humans as a species are to exist, but how unlikely it is for a species capable of building radio telescopes anywhere in the universe at any point in it's history is. Physics as we know it gives these odds at astronomically unlikely so there is a problem - my claim is that the problem is with our current understanding of physics and not with the universe.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Then let's look at the evidence from the analogy I gave you:
1) The chances of your existence are exceedingly small.
2) You exist.

Here's what the evidence tells me: Since the evidence would be the same regardless of whether you exist as the result of divine intervention or of random chance, there is no persuasive evidence that you are the result of ...[text shortened]... of divine intervention rather than that of random chance.

What does the evidence tell you?

No, your analogy doesn't say that at all. The odds that sperm A will lead to my existence is small, but that is irrelevant as the same result comes about if sperm B or C or -------------------------- to sperm AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA does.

Since we know the mechanism of human conception, we have no need to go to more esoteric explanations.

The situation is really the same in the Rick's analogy. We have two possible explanations and evidence that supports one over the other. The fact that the less plausible explanation would result in the same observable condition after the event does not mean it is as realistic an explanation as the more plausible one. Thus, far from invalidating the Rick's analogy your analogy is complementary to it.

So thanks.

I'm using the term "evidence" in its broad sense i.e. as anything relevant presented in support of an assertion including direct and circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the evidence supporting random chance and non-randomness as the cause of the universe's physical constants leading to a life compatible one are not the same as you state.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If it's not then L.H.C. will go down as the most expensive white elephant in history. Supersymmetry is pretty compelling, minimally coupled models are ruled out - but really it should be maximal. There's a tendency towards monism in physics, so yes, there is a leap of faith - but it's based on the success of finding a huge number of particles in the im ...[text shortened]... er into the Standard Model. It's not that unreasonable to think that the process will continue.

As I understand it, Hawking gets around the problem by asserting that present theory leads to the Multiverse and many different universes.

Is that your position?