Intelligent Design is not creationism

No jcl. You don't start out making assumptions or call it magic, as magic has a specific meaning of supernatural. To be scientific, you start by making NO assumptions. You observe what is observable, test what is testable, then predict etc. and go from there, to build knowledge.

It is not a semantic argument. To suggest god does not exist only because there is no observation of it in the real world, is problematic. There is no scientific basis for god because there cannot be. Unless you change the meaning of the word god, I'm saying you cannot even bring science to bear. There is nothing real or physical or natural to bear upon, because it is by definition supernatural. The thing is, only outside of science, something you or I or anyone can do, is merely invent, make up, anything to be equally supernatural as god . Equally non scientific and with no basis in science.

 

It might depend on the meaning of the word god. For instance, the traditional Christian god can not exist due to logical inconsistencies. His acts as described in the bible contradict his attributes such as omniscience, benevolence, omnipotence etc, which are logically problematic anyway. So this entity can not exist in a world that follows logic.

However other gods, such as the Greek gods, are consistent with logic. You can formulate a set of natural laws that include Greek gods. Although those are not the laws of our world, they are logically consistent and thus those gods need not be supernatural.

"Supernatural" can either mean inconsistent with the specific natural laws of our world, or inconsistent with any possible natural laws. Only for the second meaning I'd agree that it's a sufficient condition of the nonexistence of something.

 

If it depends on the meaning of the word god then I suggest that's where the semantics start, not with the question of whether the supernatural can connect to science. It cannot.
As any sort of explanation for the universe, the supernatural does not belong anywhere near science.

The Greek gods are more compatible to logic and infinitely more interesting than any others. Certainly more so than the diabolical inconsistencies of the Christian god(s) .
But I do say it is what each Greek god represents which is consistent with natural laws, not the Greek gods themselves.
It is the sky, storms, the earth, the sea, which are explained by natural laws and by science. Nowadays it is even human emotions and reactions, also represented by the gods, that can be scientifically mapped quantified and explained. Superstition too.
Not the gods themselves though. They remain supernatural.

Having been observed tested and confirmed in science, all findings conform to natural physical laws in at least some respects and from there further hypothesis can be based. Therefore all such things are within the realms of science. Any claim inconsistent with the natural physical laws of this world and the universe, is not a scientific question. I think it reasonable to describe whatever that thing is being called (God, Zeus, Tuner, Designer) as supernatural.

Natural laws are discovered. When stuff is discovered, it is overwhelmingly evident in scientific terms how there is no violation of the natural laws, the laws of physics, and how there really can't be anything that's supernatural in any real sense.

 

it takes a bit of time but even wikipedia shows you lie your ass off an just make shit up to be troll.


as I told your lying ass many times..
Susskind took the 10 to the 500 string theory solutions postulated that those solutions could all be real. Thus the string landscape of solutions is a multiverse.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape

The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory.[1] The "landscape" includes so many possible configurations that some physicists[who?] think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations.
In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500.[1] The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete,[2] being a version of the subset sum problem.

[edit]Anthropic principle

Main article: Anthropic principle
The idea of the string theory landscape has been used to propose a concrete implementation of the anthropic principle, the idea that fundamental constants may have the values they have not for fundamental physical reasons, but rather because such values are necessary for life (and hence intelligent observers to measure the constants). In 1987, Steven Weinberg proposed that the observed value of the cosmological constant was so small because it is not possible for life to occur in a universe with a much larger cosmological constant.[3] In order to implement this idea in a concrete physical theory, it is necessary to postulate a multiverse in which fundamental physical parameters can take different values. This has been realized in the context of eternal inflation.
====
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)

Non-scientific claims
In his NY TImes opinion piece, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :[17]
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

Taking cosmic inflation as a popular case in point, George Ellis provides a balanced criticism of not only the science, but as he suggests, the scientific philosophy, by which multiverse theories are generally substantiated. He, like most cosmologists, accepts Tegmark's level I “domains”, even though they lie far beyond the cosmological horizon. Likewise, the multiverse of cosmic inflation is said to exist very far away. It would be so far away, however, that it's very unlikely any evidence of an early interaction will be found. He argues that for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern. “Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.” Although he believes there's little hope that will ever be possible, he grants that the theories on which the speculation is based, are not without scientific merit. He concludes that multiverse theory is a “productive research program”:[18]
As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.

— George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?

 

Nothing you're posting is helping you move away from the ignorant ridiculous non-scientific claims you're always trying to angrily steer toward.
Lol, no surprise there then.

What you keep attempting to read into all your witless cutting and pasting, isn't the same as what it reads.


When exactly did Stephen Hawking change his name to Susskind you goof.

Stephen Hawking talks about the universe.
String landscape is not "the multiverse". False vacua is not "the multiverse". You might as well try and claim cherries are "the cake".

If you can ever grasp at least that much, get back to me.

 

I am not making any religious claims.
I am stating that the large majority of the very top scientists state our universe appears designed. And then most of them advance a multiverse guess to explan it.

You have been mis representing science.


“Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.” Although he believes there's little hope that will ever be possible, he grants that the theories on which the speculation is based, are not without scientific merit. He concludes that multiverse theory is a “productive research program”:[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape

Although few dispute the idea that string theory appears to have an unimaginably large number of metastable vacua, the existence, meaning and scientific relevance of the anthropic landscape remain highly controversial. Prominent proponents of the idea include Andrei Linde, Sir Martin Rees and especially Leonard Susskind, who advocate it as a solution to the cosmological-constant problem. Opponents, such as David Gross, suggest that the idea is inherently unscientific, unfalsifiable or premature. A famous debate on the anthropic landscape of string theory is the Smolin-Susskind debate on the merits of the landscape.
The term "landscape" comes from evolutionary biology (see Fitness landscape) and was first applied to cosmology by Lee Smolin in his book.[10] It was first used in the context of string theory by Susskind.[11]
There are several popular books about the anthropic principle in cosmology.[12] Two popular physics blogs are opposed to this use of the anthropic principle.[13]

 

You are not making any scientific ones.

It doesn't matter. It is not a scientific claim.

It doesn't matter. Many of them advance other models which do not invoke a multiverse.

If the universe is designed, then one of the of "the very top scientists" states it is designed by gravity.

The word designed doesn't say intelligently designed.

Creationism is intelligent design.

 

Very much so, take a look around...

 

....not just for "appearances" though.

 

What is arguably scientific is the the multiverse... as it is pure speculation.
That our universe is fine tuned to is apparent to just about every major scientist in the field.

This is stated by a famous cosmologist. Argue with him and Susskind and Hawking, who all tell you that our universe appears fine tuned.

If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)