Re: Geometry and G-d…
Depends on the definition of “theory” and in what context it’s being used in. A theory in a non-scientific context, without corroboration is, indeed, pretty worthless. This, however, would be called a “hypothesis” in scientififc terminology. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been validated, either by outside corroboration (such as the “micro/macro” corroboration of the chaotic inflation model) or by direct evidence.
Interestingly, this one might have the least scientific credibility, as it still miantains factors of Big Bang theory that have been discredited.
You must remember, though, that I am not purporting to be proclaiming “THE TRUTH”, as you are. I am pointing out the alternatives. In truth, I see problems with all three theories I’ve presented, and actually lean slightly towards the single-universe theory mentioned by Ikeda and Jeffreys, and which has recently been given a boost by calculations by Steven Hawkins, that state that a universe such as ours has a 98% chance of emerging from a Big Bang, and that such a universe need not relate to anything prior to in - in other words, it can form from nothing. Now, this falls more into the frame of “hypothesis” as yet, but it is intriguing nonetheless.
Essentially, you can show that I’m not showing solid enough evidence for your liking (although it is quite clear that you’ve not actually read the articles I’ve linked), but that does not alter the point that I’m making - the fine tolerences of the universe are not evidence of intelligent design, and may even be an indication of the opposite. This is my assertation, and is backed up by what I have posted. Your assertation is that the fine tolerences of the universe is proof of the existence of (a) God. This is not backed up by anything you have posted. In fact, far from backing up the hypothesis that this would be proof of the existence of God, you have simply stated it as fact and expected that it would be accepted.
And I stand by that. I am also not convinced of the cyclical nature of the universe, that chaotic inflation is the correct model, or that there are multiple coexistsing universes as suggested by a certain interpretation of quantum theory. This should be obvious from the way that I posted 3 contradictory theorys. Surely you must have realised that I couldn’t possibly believe that all three were true? I even said that I wasn’t claiming that any of the three were necessarily true.
The list I mentioned are all observable phenomena the existence of which was hypothesised by applying the scientific method to the known facts. The existence of a creator isn’t.
That said, I must conceed that I have some Nihilistic tendencies. However, this is the “cause and effect” argument again. I do not disbelieve the idea of a creator because I have some Nihilistic tendenceies, I have some Nihilistic tendencies because I disbelieve the idea of a creator. That’s an important distinction.
No, they are not. The tell-tale sign is the use of the word “clearly”. It implies that a correlation is obvious, wheras no such thing is true. You have to demonstrate the correlation between the two. I have explained and provided links to explainations of the three theories above, and how they are derived from and complimentary to established recognised science, and also to how they adhere to scientific method, including being falsifiable. You have not demonstrated the same with the Intelligent Design hypothesis. The three theories above are accepted by the majority of the scientific community (certainly the first two are, the third is more controversial), however the ID hypothesis is rejected by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Only one peer-reviewed article promoting ID has ever been published in a scientific journal, and the journal later published a retraction of the article, as it was not scientifically valid. Here: http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html The link in the article links to but one of the many scientific associations that have spoken out about the scientific invalidity of ID.
What the theory actually clearly is, is not on a par with the theories I have presented at all.
Sure. Now do me the courtesy of outlining what your objections to the application are, just as I did with yours, and we can discuss them.
The main point, for me, is the initial illustration of the “prosecutor’s Fallacy” at the begining - the example with the poker.
Maybe if you remembered all the facts, you’d remember that the reason I couldn’t read the article was because google didn’t have an HTML version cached. This one, it does. Seeing that it was a .pdf file, I opened a seperate window to google and typed in part of the url (“sober/black-da” in this case). Lo and behold, I get a link to the article, alongside a link to the HTML version. Here: [http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NOz6pL6iGwcJ 
hilosophy.wisc.edu/sober/black-da.pdf+sober/black-da&hl=en](http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NOz6pL6iGwcJ hilosophy.wisc.edu/sober/black-da.pdf+sober/black-da&hl=en)
google may be secretly evil, and it’s cache may be technically illegal, but it has its uses. I may only be an amateur researcher (most of the time), but I’m reasonably good at it, and I know a trick or two. Now you can read the article.
BTW, just thought I’d point out a couple of assumptions you’d made there, too. You assumed that I was using the same computer that I was 4 months ago (or however long it was). You assumed that I hadn’t upgraded it. You assumed that I hadn’t accessed the article from another computer. And you assumed that I’d first read the article online, rather than offline in another format. Some of those assumptions were valid, others weren’t.
I’d like to say that next time you’d be prepared to give me the benifit of the doubt, but judging by past experiences you’ll still assume the worst of me, no matter what.
You can blame Margaret Thatcher (spit, spit) for that.
Of course I’m not immune, and I am always ready to admit mistakes. In this particular case, however, we’re working from different premises. I’m not trying to prove that I know “THE TRUTH”. You are.
