(November 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)Spongebob Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 3:40 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: I see that you’re confused again. Here’s an example.
1 - Science has shown us the values of Fundamental forces in this universe.
2 - A theist says: these values  are fine-tuned by God.
Do you have any problems with theists saying that?

3 - A philosopher says that “these values are created randomly in an infinite multiverse, where universes collide and create new random big bangs”
Do you have any problems with him saying that?

I'm not confused at all, but your statements are.

1 - Scientists have identified the fundamental forces using the scientific method.  (I assume you mean the strength of each force).

A theist can hypothesize that statement 2 is true, but this is just a hypothesis, not a theory.  I have no problem with someone asserting such a hypothesis, but that's all it is.  He will have to do the necessary work to move this to theory territory.

3 - Again, this is a loosely supported theory, not a very strong one.  He can assert this all he wants but it doesn't mean its true.  

The only thing you stated before that was very well supported was that the big bang marked the beginning of our universe.  This is supported by very strong scientific evidence and thus is beyond any whimsical arguments to the contrary.  Those other arguments are far weaker and thus less worthy of acceptance.

I don't know what's so confusion about this for you.

Okay based on what you’ve said there’s is no confusion between you and I and I agree with everything you’ve said. It’s also good to see that you don’t have a problem with anyone asserting a hypothesis.

Anyone can say stuff, appears to be the answer to the question you actually wanted to ask us...which, I've got to say, is a pretty ridiculous question.

You're on a forum, saying stuff at us, after all.

As I understand it, asserting an hypothesis is free and open to anyone and as far as I can tell, many people exorcise this freedom regardless of whether they know what they are talking about. Those who don't often get quite offended when their "ideas" are not taken seriously. Anti-vaxxers are a good example. 100% pseudo-science and nonsense based, but they behave as if their ideas are backed by extremely strong science. It's an open society and that's a good and bad thing.

A philosophic hypothesis, yes, but not a scientific one. You actually do have to know something about the facts of a subject to make a scientific hypothesis - that's what differentiates it from the former where it merely refers to a proposition as a starting point for an argument with no assumption of it's truth. Compared to an explanation for some observed x based on some limited evidence designed to both answer and point to more questions, while being falsifiable.

(November 3, 2021 at 5:13 pm)Spongebob Wrote: As I understand it, asserting an hypothesis is free and open to anyone and as far as I can tell, many people exorcise this freedom regardless of whether they know what they are talking about. Those who don't often get quite offended when their "ideas" are not taken seriously. Anti-vaxxers are a good example. 100% pseudo-science and nonsense based, but they behave as if their ideas are backed by extremely strong science. It's an open society and that's a good and bad thing.

I wouldn’t put anti-vaxxers in the hypothesis category. Anti vaxxers belong with flat earthers. They border more on the cult-ish, because what they’re saying contradicts current known facts.

That doesn't appear to be a problem for you in any other context?

(November 3, 2021 at 4:53 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)Spongebob Wrote: I'm not confused at all, but your statements are.

1 - Scientists have identified the fundamental forces using the scientific method.  (I assume you mean the strength of each force).

A theist can hypothesize that statement 2 is true, but this is just a hypothesis, not a theory.  I have no problem with someone asserting such a hypothesis, but that's all it is.  He will have to do the necessary work to move this to theory territory.

3 - Again, this is a loosely supported theory, not a very strong one.  He can assert this all he wants but it doesn't mean its true.  

The only thing you stated before that was very well supported was that the big bang marked the beginning of our universe.  This is supported by very strong scientific evidence and thus is beyond any whimsical arguments to the contrary.  Those other arguments are far weaker and thus less worthy of acceptance.

I don't know what's so confusion about this for you.

Okay based on what you’ve said there’s is no confusion  between you and I and I agree with everything you’ve said. It’s also good to see that you don’t have a problem with anyone asserting a hypothesis.

 Honest answer? I have no idea.

The idealist in me says science as a principle belongs to everyone. Like open source software if you will. But that at the scientists who develop new discoveries are morally responsible for its application.  

But that's not how it works in the real world.  Companies can and do put patents on GM modified plants which could benefit the world. 
They also put patents on drugs and charge a premium. I can't do anything about that.

Seems to me there are a great many things I would like to change, but simply cannot. Perhaps a beginning of wisdom is to recognise the things one cannot change to concentrate on the things one might be able to change.

 A different perspective: Simple Marxism simply refuses to accept the concept of intellectual property rights because it's part of property rights. Consequently, science and all discoveries belong to everyone.

Intellectual property rights are the part of property rights. Nature of communistic society will be deteriorated the intellectual property rights. Marx is always advocated centralized and planned economy. Equal distribution of economic resources is the essence of Marxist thesis of social evolution.

Marxist View of IPR | Lex Research Hub


ME? oh, I'm a happy little capitalist and consumer, living a comfortable retirement thank you very much. Because it suits me, I adopt a pragmatic approach to the question, not a moral one.

Alot of what private entities patent is a product of publicly funded research. We hear, for example...about how if we don't let pharma loot and pillage, they won't have the cash for r&d...but they don't spend that money on r&d anyway...we do.

When push comes to shove, they're just threatening to cut off the supply of antibiotics if we cut out their grift. Straight up gangster.

(November 3, 2021 at 4:12 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 4:10 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Then please explain why, the vast majority of physicists (72%) from all over the world are atheists. What do you know, that these people who have dedicated their lives to study, actually work in the appropriate fields of science, and actually understand it, do not know?

And even the vast majority of the rest of them, are deists, not theists.

The fact the parameters of the universe are very specific, and if changed, the universe would not have brought forth and sustains life, does not offer a shred of evidence that it was designed that way.

How many other universes have you been able to compare our universe to? Please describe, without unsupported assertions, what an un-designed universe would look like.

We’re not on the same page here. The point is whether you have a problem with anyone using scientific facts to arrive at some unproven conclusion.

---

(November 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Using fine-tuning as an argument for God is circular - you have to presume that the Universe was intended to support life as we know it. You therefore make God both the premise and the conclusion. Doesn’t work.

Boru

Works perfectly but you don’t have to like it and that’s fine. Same as saying “an infinite multiverse” which I don’t like but I’m not criticizing those scientists who support this view based on their work on other scientific areas such as string theory or quantum mechanics.

Logically it doesn’t work at all, let alone ‘perfectly’. If your premise assumes the conclusion, you’ve committed a fatal fallacy in basic logic. It’s nothing to do with me not liking it. Try it without God in the argument, and it STILL doesn’t work. Something like this:

-My car was specifically designed to transport ducks.

-I transport ducks in my car.

-Therefore, my car was specifically designed to transport ducks.

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, regardless of the subject of the argument.

Boru

My unicorn fine tuned the universe for humans. My personal existential philosophy is very satisfied, my hypothesis makes it true. 

If you're going to (poorly) attempt to use science as validation for your god belief regarding the universe then you open up the entirety of your belief(s) to scientific scrutiny. You don't get to have it both ways. But then we all know how christians love to cherry pick, plus you're not really using science, just the illusion claiming science.