Far out cosmology (Introduction)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, January 29, 2014, 00:26 (3738 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I would like to get a firm answer from an atheist or agnostic on something, though. How many lines of indirect evidence would it take for them to admit/accept the possibility/probability of a designed universe, and thus the presence of a designer?
> 
> What I take from many of the discussions that I see is that less proof would be needed to get them to accept the idea of the tooth fairy or magic than it would for them to accept a designer. We have less evidence for multi-verses than we do for design, yet scientist are willing to accept the possibility of a multi-verse but not a designer. The theories of dark matter, dark energy, and other flights of fancy are based on less evidence than that of a designer. So, the question, how many lines of evidence would it take to get a scientist to say 'I admit that the possibility of a designer is at least as good, if not better, than the possibility of random chance creating everything that exists.-I consider myself an agnostic atheist, but my views may not be typical. 
It seems pretty evident to me that the universe is largely chaotic; 
you only have to look at photos from the Hubble space telescope to see that. 
The apparent design seen in plants and animals has been adequately explained 
by Darwinian evolution and its more recent improvements.-The hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy are not yet theories on a par 
with gravity or evolution. They are on the edges of current knowledge. -The ideas of the multiversers are even more speculative in my view. Why the physical constants of the universe are what they are is unknown. I take the view that this shows we need a deeper theory than the standard model to account for their values. They are constants, not variables.-The anthropic principle, that we exist therefore the universe must be favourable for life to evolve is just a tautology. I think the universe is in large measure unsuitable for life. It is only very unusual local conditions that have allowed life to emerge on planet Earth.-The concept of anything pre-existing the universe, is just absurd. The universe is by definition everything that exists. So nothing can exist outside or before or after it. So the hypothesis of a first cause is also absurd.-The further hypothesis of a universe with inherent consciousness down to the level of its atoms or subatomic particles I find equally absurd. Consciousness is known only in higher animals and can be explained as a result of the evolution of complexity of the nervous system.

--
GPJ