Asking of the Designer what we would of any other designer (The atheist delusion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 31, 2011, 05:51 (4865 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, July 31, 2011, 06:00


> > You're missing my point... by ignoring the other universes that could possibly exist (such as one without the electroweak force) you're engaging in identical folly as the physicists invoking the anthropic principle. One of these "failed" universes could hold a theoretical key... one that could unlock deeper secrets pertaining to our own universe--within our own model. 
> > 
> > It's the same flaw I've seen in abiogenesis research: Stop trying to recreate life "as it was" and just "get it done."
> 
> If you are inventing a supposition you are dealing with pie in the sky. I realize you are a math guy and a computer guy, but computer simulations are as good as the guesses of the folks who write the program. Science is an attempt to find true facts. Having been raised in hard sciences, the computer stuff makes me shake my head in disbelief. 
> -True, all programs are only as good as their programmers and their input data. But if your computer model (like the ones they use for this kind of research) accurately creates a universe that models ours to the degree of precision that we have--remember that WMAP verified what we predicted with computer models--than there should be no problem running experiments while tweaking those models to our heart's content. Establishing theoretical upper and lower bounds such was what was done in the link I posted is very important, because it allows us to build a range of possible theoretical universes, and more importantly, allows us a much more accurate picture of exactly how unique our universe is. -That reads badly... -Another way of putting it is this: If you accept that the big bang model agrees with observation, then you implicitly accept the precision of the mathematics that describe it. The models run in experiments like in what I showed use the exact same equations used to study the Big Bang, they just subtracted a force and observed what happened to the universes. If you label these simulations as "guesses" than you really throw the entire Big Bang mathematical model into question--NOT just this particular experiment. -You can't accept that the model fits reality, and then reject experiments based on tweaking the same model. Their scientific validity cannot be refuted. If there's a flaw here, it exists everywhere in the math, not just in isolated cases.-> As for abiogenesis, at least the folks find RNAzymes to support their theory, but that step is a thousands steps beyond the beginning, but what is the beginning? It is all guesswork, as are the fake universes.-See above.-[EDITED] hopefully for more clarity...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"