Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

William Dembski

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 5:58:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He has to be one of the most modest Intelligent Design advocates lol He claims the PoE is such a problem for him, that he's resorted to retro-causality to explain disease or other types suffering that we know probably existed before the "fall" scientifically. He thinks the fine-tuning of the universe argument is bogus, as we have no real background knowledge behind the universe to say how probable ours is, and that chance and physical necessity create most of what we see.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 6:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 5:58:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
He has to be one of the most modest Intelligent Design advocates lol He claims the PoE is such a problem for him, that he's resorted to retro-causality to explain disease or other types suffering that we know probably existed before the "fall" scientifically. He thinks the fine-tuning of the universe argument is bogus, as we have no real background knowledge behind the universe to say how probable ours is, and that chance and physical necessity create most of what we see.

The biggest problem I have with Dembski is that he is intelligent and I cant believe he is honest when he says he believes this ID stuff. I think that"s why he reverts to these strange arguments as he has no where else to turn to at least sound pseudo intellectual without been part of the creation institute laughing stock. However, most scientists can see it for what it is as you have pointed out.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 7:39:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 5:58:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
He has to be one of the most modest Intelligent Design advocates lol He claims the PoE is such a problem for him, that he's resorted to retro-causality to explain disease or other types suffering that we know probably existed before the "fall" scientifically. He thinks the fine-tuning of the universe argument is bogus, as we have no real background knowledge behind the universe to say how probable ours is, and that chance and physical necessity create most of what we see.

That shouldn't make it bogus. I've heard many an astrophysicist allude to the fact that they consider life elsewhere in the galaxy to be almost a certainty because of the huge number of stars there are, yet it's impossible to make any such claim when we don't even know what the odds were of life forming on Earth. If the odds were about 200-billion to one then the odds of life in our galaxy has already been fulfilled, since that number is equal to the number of stars in our galaxy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:15:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 7:39:49 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:58:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
He has to be one of the most modest Intelligent Design advocates lol He claims the PoE is such a problem for him, that he's resorted to retro-causality to explain disease or other types suffering that we know probably existed before the "fall" scientifically. He thinks the fine-tuning of the universe argument is bogus, as we have no real background knowledge behind the universe to say how probable ours is, and that chance and physical necessity create most of what we see.

That shouldn't make it bogus.

He's talking about the fine-tuning of the physical constants for allowing life in the first place. The probabilities aren't based on background knowledge, just fallacious equal distribution. We have no idea what the "universe generating mechanism" is to be able to claim that our universe is so improbable. Perhaps there is a fact which forces those particular constants that we are unaware of. Thus, all these other conceived universe's couldn't have actually played out, even though we could conceive of them playing out due to ignorance of restricting factors if this is the case.

I've heard many an astrophysicist allude to the fact that they consider life elsewhere in the galaxy to be almost a certainty because of the huge number of stars there are, yet it's impossible to make any such claim when we don't even know what the odds were of life forming on Earth. If the odds were about 200-billion to one then the odds of life in our galaxy has already been fulfilled, since that number is equal to the number of stars in our galaxy.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:28:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Honestly I think the whole fine tuning argument is flawed form a hypothetical point of view. If the values were different, how can we know for certain if the universe would not exist. For example say the gravity constant was different, then maybe the speed of light, and the boiling point of water changes.Life would still exist,but not how we know it now.

Granted, this is how I perceive it so I am gladly accepting criticisms.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 9:47:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:15:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/27/2013 7:39:49 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/27/2013 5:58:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
He has to be one of the most modest Intelligent Design advocates lol He claims the PoE is such a problem for him, that he's resorted to retro-causality to explain disease or other types suffering that we know probably existed before the "fall" scientifically. He thinks the fine-tuning of the universe argument is bogus, as we have no real background knowledge behind the universe to say how probable ours is, and that chance and physical necessity create most of what we see.

That shouldn't make it bogus.

He's talking about the fine-tuning of the physical constants for allowing life in the first place. The probabilities aren't based on background knowledge, just fallacious equal distribution. We have no idea what the "universe generating mechanism" is to be able to claim that our universe is so improbable. Perhaps there is a fact which forces those particular constants that we are unaware of. Thus, all these other conceived universe's couldn't have actually played out, even though we could conceive of them playing out due to ignorance of restricting factors if this is the case.

I've heard many an astrophysicist allude to the fact that they consider life elsewhere in the galaxy to be almost a certainty because of the huge number of stars there are, yet it's impossible to make any such claim when we don't even know what the odds were of life forming on Earth. If the odds were about 200-billion to one then the odds of life in our galaxy has already been fulfilled, since that number is equal to the number of stars in our galaxy.

That's true. I hadn't thought about it quite that way. I mean, it had to be some way, and whatever way it was the same argument could still be applied, so it's really a bit misleading.