The Ownership of Science

[Abaddon_ire]

[quote='Abaddon_ire' pid='2073415' dateline='1635968216']
Not at all. Science is evidence based. What science can you provide for your god?

None.

Am I wrong? Have you some particular scientific evidence for your particular version of a god? Of course not.

Put up or shut up.

Dude are you reading? Fine-tuning is a scientific fact which a theist can use to prove that the universe was intelligently designed.

No, it isn't. Did your pastor tell you that lie?

How do you feel about peddling lies?

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, a flat earther could actually put forward a convincing demonstration rooted in scientific observation. Isn't that something? Even people who are absolutely wrong about a thing can still at least -try- to ground it in science. That was the basis of a profitable con back in the day.

You, for example, could say -and be absolutely wrong- that you conclude a god created the universe because life is adapted to it's environment...and that would be using science, at least.

[GaryAnderson]

Duplicate post.

[GaryAnderson]

Duplicate post.

[GaryAnderson]

I don’t want to get into math because I’m neither an expert on it nor a big fan but Max Tegmark who has spent his life on mathematics says that “the bottom or pure reality is mathematical”. This is of course a respectable view to me and I don’t mind him using math to arrive at that conclusion.

Professor Tegmark, like everyone else, is entitled to his views.  Problem is that mathematics, sometimes, does not describe reality.  Here's J.J. Thomson's, a Nobel laureate, model of the atom:

Plum pudding model.

His model is perfectly mathematical, but, it does not describe reality, at least in our Universe.  Professor Tegmark really should know better.

Hey whether we like it or not, is not the point. I personally don’t believe in it but I respect the guy for spending his life on the topic of math and most importantly I don’t have a problem with him using math to arrive at his conclusion. 
I don’t condemn him for using math basically and I certainly don’t want to take math away from him.

---

Not at all. Science is evidence based. What science can you provide for your god?

None.

Am I wrong? Have you some particular scientific evidence for your particular version of a god? Of course not.

Put up or shut up.

Dude are you reading? Fine-tuning is a scientific fact which a theist can use to prove that the universe was intelligently designed.

No, it isn't. Did your pastor tell you that lie?

How do you feel about peddling lies?

You a flat earther too? 🤣

[Ahriman]

Atheists use the word "science" with such devout reverence.......almost as if they were referring to a God or something like that. Hmm. Interesting.

[Angrboda]

Nope

Yes. I’m not going to spend energy to explain this to you but this is a fact.

If you're going to claim something, then you need to back it up with support or accept that your claim can be readily dismissed.

I have no problem with people arguing from fine tuning toward some conclusion, but that's not science but rather a philosophical argument.  Nothing can be concluded from the constants of the universe without knowing why they are what they are.  Is it possible the universe was fine tuned?  Sure.  Its also possible the universe's constants couldn't be other than what they are and no fine tuning could have happened. But there's no way to tell whether it was or it wasn't from the constants themselves.  That means the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.  If the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.  Therefore fine tuning is not science.

It's not even good philosophy because all the fine tuning argument says is, "If things were different, then things would be different." We don't need to know anything about science to know that.  And that's the long and short of "fine tuning."

[Abaddon_ire]

Professor Tegmark, like everyone else, is entitled to his views.  Problem is that mathematics, sometimes, does not describe reality.  Here's J.J. Thomson's, a Nobel laureate, model of the atom:

Plum pudding model.

His model is perfectly mathematical, but, it does not describe reality, at least in our Universe.  Professor Tegmark really should know better.

Hey whether we like it or not, is not the point. I personally don’t believe in it but I respect the guy for spending his life on the topic of math and most importantly I don’t have a problem with him using math to arrive at his conclusion. 
I don’t condemn him for using math basically and I certainly don’t want to take math away from him.

---

You a flat earther too? 🤣

No, but your god clearly is.

[GaryAnderson]

Yes. I’m not going to spend energy to explain this to you but this is a fact.

If you're going to claim something, then you need to back it up with support or accept that your claim can be readily dismissed.

I have no problem with people arguing from fine tuning toward some conclusion, but that's not science but rather a philosophical argument. Nothing can be concluded from the constants of the universe without knowing why they are what they are. Is it possible the universe was fine tuned? Sure. But there's no way to tell whether it was or it wasn't from the constants themselves. That means the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. If the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, then it's not a scientific hypothesis. Therefore do be tuning is not science.

It's not even good philosophy because all the fine tuning argument says is, "If things were different, then things would be different." We don't need to know anything about science to know that. And that's the long and short of "fine tuning."

Yes understood. Thank you for saying that you have “ no problem with people arguing from fine tuning toward some conclusion”. That’s all I’m asking here.

[Simon Moon]

Dude are you reading? Fine-tuning is a scientific fact which a theist can use to prove that the universe was intelligently designed.

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. You are looking at this as if we are the goal of the universe, but in fact, we are probably just the results of a universe that is able to support life.

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.