If I may jump in here…

It is true that explanations should first be sought in terms of known quantities.

But the point is that, in this case, known quantities do not provide an explanation – just as “Newtonian quantities” do not provide an explanation for quantum behavior. Thus, if we are to have any explanation at all, we have no choice but to postulate unknown quantities.

No. The reason for that is the same reason that has always plagued science (and all of mankind for that matter) – “resistance to change”.

It’s perfectly analogous to “inertia” – there are a few centuries of time and effort behind the direction science is now going. Changing the direction of something with that much “inertia” behind it is not easy.

Thankfully, there are some small pockets of change (e.g. PEAR), so at least it’s starting.

Actually, there is a missing prerequisite step in both those positions – “Is there a designer?”

That’s what this whole thread is about.

The problem is that, with very few exceptions, that question has never been addressed scientifically. So of course, there can be very little scientific evidence either way.

Sky,

Good post. I had not appealed to Occam's razor, I was simply clarifying the idea in an attempt to correct it's misuse.

Yes, I understand that.

I was just replying to the "What about...?" question.

From my perspective you most certainly have.

I have offered you repeatedly that science simply cannot say. I have even offered this very thing several times throughout this very thread.

You continually refuse to accept that and take the hard-core stance that science favors no-design.

In fact, you've spoken about the "burden of proof". But, in truth, there is no burden of prove on me, because all I'm saying is that science can't say.

The real burden of proof is on you to prove why science favors no-design.

It appears that the only thing that can even remotely be offered in that regard is "Occam's Razor", which you have just pretended to not be appealing to:



Well, if you're not appealing to Occam's Razor then what's your support for claiming that science favors no-design.

I say, that science can't make a determination at all. However, if we want to look at evidence for what it could 'potentially favor' (assuming that we are allowed to extrapolate "outside of the box") I would actually suggest that the scientific evidence favors design.

However, I refuse to do that in practice because, like Sky, I'm fully aware that extrapolations from "inside the box" to "outside of the box" are meaningless.

I don't normally go around claiming that science supports "design".

I only took that position in this thread becasue I'm fully aware that your purpose was to try to paint a picture that science supports "no design".

So I took the challenge to show you why that doesn't work.

Normally I don't argue for "design". Instead, I show how the things that science has discovered, observed, and experimentally verified (especially in the realm of quantum physics) can potentially be used to show why certain seemingly supernatural and psychic phenomena can indeed be plausibly explained in terms of the mathematics and observed behavior of the quantum world.

I'm probably the most down-to-earth and skeptical scientist that you'll even encounter.

Where people make a really huge mistake with me is to assume that I'm claiming to have 'proof' of something when, in fact, all I ever do is offer plausibility arguments and serve up food-for-thought.

In the meantime I'll repeat again.

Science is in no position to answer the question of design versus no-design, and arguments based on physical observations can indeed be made for 'both cases', but in neither case can those argument retain any integrity when extrapolated to "outside of the box".

So science simply can't say one way or the other.

That's my current position to date, and always has been. As with all scientific positions, it's subject to change as new evidence becomes available.

Your perspective is severely flawed.



Everything I have written supports the idea that science does not say cannot say. Nothing I have written contradicts that, so I have no idea where you are obtaining the information from which you draw the conclusion that I supposedly take "the hardcore stance that science favors no-design". That is bullsh*t! I have given sound philosophical proof regarding the fallacious form of argument which is required to even begin to delve into the teleological idea of a designed universe.

Simply put, your arguing against things unwritten by me. If you feel as though that is not the case, then by all means...

Quote me!



That is not all you have said, though.

Burden of proof is had upon s/he who makes a positive assertion. A claim of "The universe is a design." is such a thing. Your arguing for that idea requires substantive evidence. All you have presented can(and has) been explained away. There would be no point nor need in invoking the idea of burden of proof if your only claim was that science does not or cannot say. That was not your only claim.



Why would I possibly be required to shoulder the burden of proof for a claim which I have not made?





Where is yours for saying I have?





This says it all, does it not? Your delusion regarding what you thought I was up to affected your mindset(perceptual capabilities) in such a way that your goal was to disprove what you wrongfullythought I was up to. Thank you for admitting it.





To show why what doesn't work?



Perhaps you are. I cannot make such a conclusion because I do my best to avoid thought processes which lead to placing a personal value upon you personally.



I agree.

Well, break open the champagne and let's celebrate!

Where is smiless? I am hungry!



I am poor too though, would cheap beer suffice?

I beg to differ.

“Assuming a premise” is not a “fallacious form of argument”. It is exactly what is always done when there is no evidence to the contrary. Philosophers do it. Scientists do it. “Even uneducated humans do it.” (Cole Porter joke).

The only requirement for any argument is a premise (“designer”/”no designer”). If there is no evidence to the contrary, then there is no logical reason to exclude any premise from consideration. And as far as I can tell, everyone is agreed that there is no evidence either way.

So we simply say “What if ____?” and then proceed from there. That is where the "delving in the teleological argument" begins.

Nothing fallacious about that at all.

I agree with Sky on the point he just made.

In fact, isn't this the way that scientists work as well.

First they postulate the existence of strings. Then the decide how many dimensions the strings need to vibrate in, and how big or small the strings have to be, etc, etc, etc.

But the whole entire theory is all based on an imagined postulated string.

That's how a designer theory should work too. You just postulate that a designer exists, and then you go about saying what all properties that designer would need to possess in order to make a consistent theory.

That's how all theories are done.

I feel a need to mention also, that Jeanniebean is the only one working in the correct direction. (well, I guess Sky is too).

JB begins with the only thing that she can know with 100% certainty:

I AM.

That's her starting point. She works outward from there. So she's already starting with an obvious intelligent entity. That's a given that can't be denied. That's her starting point. She begins with her own conscious existence and works outward.

If we stop and think about the scientific approach (as a philosophy) it's utterly weird. Scientists are attempting to start with imaginary strings, and then work backwards to figure out what THEY ARE.

When you stop and think about this, it seems ludicous.

I think Jeanniebean has the right idea.

BOY am I glad to see someone else recognizing this.

I started a thread a year or more ago ("Self-centric.vs.Other-centric", if anyone remembers) that attempted to show exatcly this: "Scientists are attempting to start with imaginary strings, and then work backwards to figure out what THEY ARE. "

But scientists also seem to have a death grip on the idea that "perception/observation is unreliable". So why do they base everything they do on perception/observation??? It truly is ludicrous. The absolute best they can ever come up with is "agreement".

So there doesn't seem to be any better starting point than "I", because if "I" is false, then nothing can considered to be true - simply because "I" is what determines truth or falsehood.

(And yes, Jeannie has pushed the idea more than I have. I have just been more more inclined to try to avoid the ridicule that seems to come with expressing sich a viewpoint.)

So here's to you "sticking to your guns" Jeannie!

And thanks to you Abra!

Well I start with the only thing I am certain of and no one can argue with me about what I know.

I AM.

And after all of this deep contemplating I end up right back where I started from.

I AM.

But at least I got to meet all of you.

I remain. I AM.

Everything else is just an opinion.

But you are real. You are the ONE.

No, you gave fallacies for design n_n

Man you must have been a crappy science teacher.

Alright, the distinction between dark matter and dark energy are outside my expertise so I guess you win that point.
*that's actually a really terrible reason to say your argument is any good.

Actually space is expanding rather than the things in it moving outwards and I'm not aware of any equations that say the expansion of space should require energy input so I don't understand that one either.

POSTULATE does not equal STATE. They're saying maybe there are strings and saying generally where to look to find out, but not that is even something you should have heavy expectations of.

And they WILL be wrong. Not necessarily entirely wrong and even right in general but when we actually get a chance to look it's not going to 100% match their expectations through and through.

Well basically you're attacking one view with the implication that if it is wrong yours is the only alternative and when things are different from what you thought you... you don't even acknowledge it, you just edit it out.

Exactly what do you think things would look like without a creator involved?

That's talking about energy, not sizes.

But what's so bad about proving old ideas didn't te the whole story anyway?


If we observe the effect something has it's not entirely invisible.

So tell me what there is that makes the designer not invisible. I tore up the questions you had before, have you got anything else?

I'd be much happier with your doing it if you understood it.

You sure keep saying that we can see the design a whole lot.

Ok, maybe this will help. You can't see wind but if your laundry is hanging out to dry you can see the wind push it. We thinks of seeing wind as seeing everything in it's path bend or fall over it the direction the wind is blowing. Show me that stuff for your designer.

Yep, string theory doesn't fit Occam's razor so it's not a default. If we observed those seven dimensions and they had the properties they should have according to string theory then maybe it would end up the simplest explanation but right now it really is just a popular guess people are excited about finding evidence for or against.

You've said there's unnatural order to EVERYTHING and thrown in an extra consciousness (or several) for that to wiggle in.

CONCLUDE does not equal POSTULATE.

And cosmologists[/russia] say anything about what dark matter or energy are like? This isn't holding up sir.

Well yes, and you incessant lol'ing at me with so many emoticons doesn't help the case for you wanting to be taken seriously.

I think I've made it obvious enough by now.

Oh I hate the excuse the early rapid inflation. "It's too similar" means what? Too similar on what basis? People say the "stuff" would have to have been much closer to be so similar but wasn't it supposed to have basically been right on top of the same point at the start anyway?

*I understand that it probably matters if things were close before or after the universe went transparent and atoms being present and so forth but I've never had an official explanation of what exactly the reason for that is, just the watered down Discovery channel special explanations that don't really tell you squat about physics.

We've split atoms and made the quarks recombine into other particles. Not good enough?

Naturalistic causes. Check out every field of science if you'd like to see what some of them look like.

And please stop asking questions I've already answered. Leading things in circles would be alright if you were ritical of my answers but you seem to just ignore them and chop them out of these replies.

Only "evidence" I've seen for atoms being designed was your claim that there are 100 specific ones. There aren't 100 specific ones, plain and simple. What other "evidence" have you got of atoms being designed?

Any reason that shouldn't be?

It has infinity types of atoms. Some of them split faster than others but you DO NOT HAVE ONE HUNDRED.


Nice claim. It would be nicer to just postulate it instead of trying to make it the default option but it would be even nicer if you would give some evidence of it.

Actually no, it doesn't.
RNA has the ability as it folds into ribosomes (and if you know jack squat about DNA you know the roles those serve,) and it folds into little units that match up to other RNA with a ribosome to stick amino acids together. Amino acids do all of the work in cells RNA doesn't and DNA came after that combo.

So programmers make programs that crash. This program doesn't crash.
A: no programmer did it.
B: Scratch out A like it isn't even an option and say that it's just a really good programmer.

Well, we know which option you chose.

No, having all of the proteins and RNA configured to read the DNA the same way and having the same chains of reactions set up in our cells are huge parts of it too.

There's not just one. Even of the amino acids we do use in most cases only four classes they fall into matter and you can interchange any of them within those classes for a protein that will have the same function. And with RNA there are only 4 options to begin with.

Actually we see that a lot- sort of. With C+ and similar languages you should know that they crash about as soon as anything abnormal happens but with Java it tries to keep going and just shrug off the errors. Life falls somewhere in between.

How would we see that? DNA is relatively durable compared to RNA and proteins but even just a few million years and it degrades pretty heavily. How the hell would we still have any from almost four billion years ago?

Or did you completely ignore when I explained why we wouldn't see any programs pop up after our planet already had one going?

So you understand that early bacteria would eat the materials it takes for abiogenesis right? And you understand how without the materials you couldn't get a second one popping up right?
And did you catch where I said we could have had lots pop up but before switching to DNA they fused together in a variety of ways?

Well with you bringing that stuff up you obviously didn't so thank you for reading what I say. I'm so glad you value my input -_-;

Actually yes before. Looks like you didn't read where I talked about membranes and making copies of RNA and proteins either.

Yes, it would miss it. Good thing I went to all that effort going into the origin of life that you didn't read.


I can see now you're one of those goalpost movers. The "real miracle" is whatever step you think the person you're talking to can't explain. If they do, well, you can move it back to whatever else they can't explain.

If your view was default sure. It's not.

Survival of the fittest. You can do math can't you? n_n

You don't listen very well. I've already given other justifications for it. I'd give more but I'm going to wait until I think you can be trusted to actually read my posts in a way that you comprehend some of what I say.

I'm not even taking the stance that you think I'm taking.

You haven't been following the deeper subtles of what's going on here, and you couldn't possibly do that anyway because you're too new here.

This ultimately isn't even about what you think it's about.

The conclusion we've already made is that we can't say anything about a designer using the scientific method.

However, that includes any nonsense about attempting to extrapolate an idea of natural processes "outside of the box".

So before you go around passing personal judgments on people on a forum please get your post count up at least to a point where you can actually say that you know who it is you are conversing with.

In the meantime I won't hold any of this against you, so you don't need to worry about that.

I don't get how you can know a term like ad hominem but not understand arguments from ignorance or authority etc.

But besides, it's not an ad hominem as I'm not using it as an argument. I was just saying it to hear myself make typing sounds (and to influence you a bit.)

I'd forgive me because I'm honest. Around here that's fairly significant.

Ya, I guess I'm misunderstanding the question. Can you ask it in a less vague way?

You attacked my character the last time I said you didn't understand something.

No, I'm making comments about your knowledge of science because of all of the horribly inaccurate things you have declared to be the way of the world and more importantly because you labeled yourself as an authority on science. So seriously, tell us what you taught already.

I haven't misrepresented science. You're just over-reacting and misundertanding my points.

I don't disagree with evolution by natural selection as you have erroneously suggested.

You claim that I have declared horribly inaccurate things about science, but I have not. Where did I say anything that isn't mainstream science?

If you're attempting to claim that science supports "no-design" over "design" then I'd say you're the one who's misrepresenting science.

science "supports" nothing. science questions everything. i know of no hypothosis that meets the science standard of a theory that "supports" design or no-design. the big bang is the prevaling theory that we currently see as an explanation of how the visible universe began as we have a great deal of evidence supporting that theory but it's the evidence that supports the theory, not science. the question of design is a theological question, not a science question.

considering your earlier "explanation" of what a scientific theory is i think you'd be a crappy science teacher too.



well i've been around since the beginning of this thread and i've not a clue what "conclusion we've already made" regarding the scientific method. i don't see that there's much agreement at all as to what the scientific method is much less that we've "concluded" anything.



post count? what count gets me or him to a point where i know who i'm conversing with and what the hell does it matter if i know who i'm conversing with? is there a credential that's required to participate in open forum? can he not take issue with a single post without knowing who made the post? what does it matter what he knows about a poster if he thinks the post itself is flawed. this post policing crap really begins to wear thin.

I'm in 100% agreement with what you just said!

Especially your observation: "i know of no hypothosis that meets the science standard of a theory that "supports" design or no-design"

You can take that to the bank and I'll be right there with you to support the deposit.

That's precisely my stance as well.

You'd have to be more specific here because my "explanations" of what constitutes a "scientific theory" were taken from "actual examples" that the scientific currently calls "theories".

For example: String "Theory"

Is String "Theory" a valid "scientific" theory?

I would argue that it most certainly is not. It can't be, because it's currently untestable by observation and experiment which is required as part of the "Scientific Method".

By the way, I'm not alone in this view, there are many scientists who take this very same stance. Lee Smolin actually wrote a book on this very view entitled "The Trouble with Physics".

So I was basically addressing what scientists are actually doing, and I'll be the first to agree that they are going off on tangents that do not follow the "Scientific Method".

In fact, Brian Green has a great video called "The Elegant Universe" that has been out for quite some time. If you watch that video you will see several very prominent phsyicists who ask the question, "Is String Theory even Science? Or is is just a philosophy?"

Because it doesn't fit the requirements set forth by the "Scientific Method of Investigation"

So for you to state that I would be a crappy science teacher based on my understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory you better think again.

Even mainstream scientists can't agree!




Well, for one thing I've noticed that Shoku has been getting side-tracked on some "crosstalk" I had with Redykeulous about DNA that wasn't even part of my conversation with HIM.

He's jumping in on a totally seperate conversation and trying to apply that to a totally different argument.

The argument that I gave about the number of different kinds of elements in this universe relative to total number of atoms is not dependent on DNA or the process of evolution by natural selection.

On the contary, the very existence of DNA and the process of evolution by natural selection are totally dependent on the atomic content of this universe.

So by responding to my replies to Di about DNA, he's just confusioning the whole issue.

I'm totally aware of how the process of natural selection works. That's totally after the fact that DNA exists in such a clean universe to begin with.

In fact, this whole conversation with Shoku has actually be quite enlightening for me, because Shoku has shown me precisely why it is that people who are focused on evolution by natural selection actually view the question of "design" whilst wearing complete blinders concerning the physics of this universe that lead up to the conditions that allow DNA to even exist in such a clean universe in the first place.

I gave analogies about car parts in previous posts. Some people "got it" and others didn't.

Unfortunately it seems that the people who "get it" are those who already understand why evolution by natural selection doesn't say anything at all about whether or not there is a need for a designer. That is way far after the fact of other important questions associated with why this universe is the way it is.

Just the same, this has been a real eye-opener for me concerning how differently people view the question of design. So this has been a very productive thread for me from that vantage point.