If Intelligent Design was really science, what could you write a PhD thesis on?

[theFLEW]

Hmmmm, I'm not sure if I agree with you unless I am misunderstanding you.  "These constants" are not the way they are because of nature, but on the contrary, nature is the way it is because of "these constants".  If it's the other way around, then all of a sudden you've created a "demi-god" of sorts who's name is "Nature" and...wait...is this an argument for the existence of God?  Because I thought....oh well, never mind.

I now understand your rock analogy, it has to do with probability?  Now, forgive me if I am still not understanding the analogy, but it would seem to me that probability makes the problem worse.  Why?  Not because we're dealing with numbers, but because we're dealing with a number.  In as much as we have forces, attraction, and unattraction, and these "constants of the universe" desire a specific number in order to function, any deviation equals zero probability.  It's not "10 to the negative 'some really big number'," it's zero.  It's why you can plug these numbers into equations without worrying about getting irrational answers.  That's how we sent men to the moon.  That's why we always first assume human error.  That is why, in the event of no perceived or evident human error, we can create theories on an as of yet undiscovered universal constant; we were just missing some part of the greater math equation (a nod to quantum and subquantum physics).  The take home point is this: these constants haven't evolved, they've been the way they are since the origin of the universe.  To leave something like this to chance is simply incomprehensible. 

[MadBunny]

At the risk of oversimplifying here, and ignoring that the 'hypothesis' can't be falsified...




Would you be so kind as to fill in the next step please? 
Right where the question mark is.

[Azdgari]

Hmmmm, I'm not sure if I agree with you unless I am misunderstanding you.  "These constants" are not the way they are because of nature, but on the contrary, nature is the way it is because of "these constants".

Treating "these constants" as independent, random occurrences is as reasonable as treating the rock's molecules as independent, random occurrences.

The take home point is this: these constants haven't evolved, they've been the way they are since the origin of the universe.  To leave something like this to chance is simply incomprehensible.

Similarly, the rock's molecular structure has not evolved significantly since its formation.[1]  That structure can be taken as a constant.  Every molecule in it is independent...right?  None of them depended on other constants at all.

Please, please justify why you are treating everything in that manner.

Example:  You cite the following as constants (just taking an obvious cluster of points)...

    Entropy level of the universe
    Age of the universe
    Uniformity of radiation
    Homogeneity of the universe
    Average distance between galaxies
    Average distance between galaxy clusters
    Average distance between stars
    Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
    Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids

Now, do you suppose that these factors have absolutely nothing to do with each other?  That the age of the universe does not affect the average distance between galaxies, or galaxy clusters?  That the entropy level of the universe has nothing to do with the age of the universe?  That the homogeneity of the universe does not affect the uniformity of cosmic background radiation?  That the average distance between stars has nothing to do with galaxy formation in the first place?

Because that's the sort of thing that makes my analogy absolutely spot-on regarding your treatment of these data points.  You're treating them as independent, when they're really, really obviously not.  Which leads me to quesiton your motives.

1.	Putting aside such things as radioactive decay of unstable isotopes, and the inevitable weathering of rock on the surface of the Earth; let's say the unstable isotopes are negligible and the rock isn't prone to weathering (it's pure quartzite).

[dloubet]

The important question is how can you put controls in place to prevent a supernatural being from interfering with your experiment?

I mean, if you posit a supernatural being that can affect your experiment on a whim -- and you can't place controls on its influence -- all your observations are automatically suspect.

[velkyn]

I want to know the probability of a god existing, NTS.  And nice argument from personal incredulity.

as has been said, a universe with a god that can do *anything* and controls everything all of the time as Christains claim,  would not need constants at all. 

[jaimehlers]

I'm reminded of the game SimCity, where you had disasters that happened naturally or that player could inflict intentionally.

From the perspective of the Sims, how could they know the difference between the god-like ability of the player to call down disasters at a whim, and an ordinary disaster that happened on its own, if there was nothing the Sims could use to tell them apart?  That's the question ID needs to answer.