|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Then you won't have any problem providing the original source so that we can see the context for the quoted phrases, will you ? See Message 71. From that link:
quote: No mention of "direct observation" or anything similar. DT's "quote" is a poor paraphrase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
designtheorist writes:
In the question of "Where are my keys?" the hypothesis might be that they were stolen by gremlins. The null hypothesis would be that they were not stolen by gremlins. An alternative hypothesis might be that they're in my other pants. Can you think of any new evidence regarding the Cambrian that would lead you in the direction of the work of an intelligent being? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis? The original hypothesis requires some previous evidence that gremlins exist while the alternative hypothesis requires some evidence that I have other pants. The test for gremlins is considerably more difficult than the test for pants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
How does that even relate to a null hypothesis? I think it is valuable for you to do your own reasoning on these points, but I am willing to give you an example. Let's say you are interested in the question of detecting the effects of a Creator God in the area of the fine-tuned universe. Plug in your own numbers here, this is just an example. You may say, if the fine-tuning only involves six parameters and the tuning has a range of 25%, then I would consider that to be not extremely fine-tuned. It could well be these numbers result from pure chance. You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator. You need to decide a priori what you expect to find and what those findings will mean to you. Would you say no amount of fine-tuning would convince me a Creator was involved? I cannot. At some point, theoretically speaking, you have to say 'The is beyond the realm of a chance happening. This shows intention and purpose.' I hope that helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Scientists detect things which are not directly observable regularly Of course. Nobody, especially Genie Scott, is denying that. Oh, except for the YECs who try to distingush between "observational" and "historical" sciences. The problem with the Goddidit hypothesis is not that we can't observe Him directly, but that an omnipotent Being could do anything and therefore anything we observe could have been produced by Him. there is no possibility of distinguishing between an observation produced by "natural" causes and an observation produced by His direct action. Here's a game we can play. You are the chancellor of the University of Utah in 1990. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are in your office. You complain about the lack of replication of their cold fusion results, and they answer "It really worked at the time, but God must have changed the Universe in an undetectable way so it doesn't work anymore". What is your response? Oh and the null hypothesis for all your questions is "what we observe was produced by known natural agencies". It's your job to come up with any alternative hypotheses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined:
|
quote: Maybe I missed something but I see a gigantic gap in logic where my ellipses are. Perhaps you can explain more? So far you've missed that part in many places. You might note that our current state of knowledge of physics doesn't allow us to make, that I know, of any statements about so-called "fine tuning". For one thing the constants we see may be the only possible ones. For another we already have some work done that shows that varying more than one constant allows for universes that "work" even if they are widely different from our own. So any use of fine tuning at all is a house built on sand and currently utterly useless as an argument for anything at all. Unless you actually have some logic that allows you to fill in those ellipses. We await.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
You may say, if the fine-tuning only involves six parameters and the tuning has a range of 25%, then I would consider that to be not extremely fine-tuned. It could well be these numbers result from pure chance. You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator. There is no number of parameters and allegedly astonishing fits that by themselves will convince me there cannot be a "natural" origin of the universe. Until we have much more data than we do we're just a puddle of water surprised by how well we fit into that depression in the road. There could be uncountable numbers of other universes with different parameters. There could be uncountable numbers of those universes that contain life so different from what we know that we can't even imagine it. You can express astonishment at how well the universe fits us (even though so much of it doesn't) but it's just handwaving until you can provide a probability calculation based on observation and measurement. And we're pretty far from being able to do that and it's likely we will be in that situation for a long time to come. Personally, I like the quantum fluctuation hypothesis, but there are lots of "naturalistic" possibilities that are not disproven by "fine-tuning". And you don't have a meaningful argument that what we see is unlikely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
If you are going to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing reality you need to be able to distinguish between a universe where there is no supernatural involvement and one where there is.
What would the universe look like without any supernatural involvement?What would the universe look like with supernatural involvement included? How have you come to these conclusions? DT writes: Science has detected both dark matter and dark energy. We believe they exist because we can see their effects. Gravity is an observable phenomenon. We infer their existence of dark matter because our theory of gravtitation, which we know is able to make accurate predictions regarding gravitational phenonema , suggests that there is considerably more mass in the universe than so far directly observed. What similarly compelling (i.e. able to make testable predictions) theoretical basis can be utilised in order to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural?
DT writes: What do you think? I think your claims rely on the rather debateable premise that the observable universe is so ordered/impressive/wondrous/whatever that it must have been created by some sort of super-being. I also think it worth noting that humanity has a rather dismal record of erroneously invoking gods as necessary causal agents for phenomenon deemed wondrous and impressive. But I, like everyone else here, am still waiting for this evidence you keep promsing us.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
designtheorist writes: You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator. That seems like a silly thing to say if we're going through this scientifically.Let's assume your claim is true, scientifically. Let's assume that "the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%" This does not imply that the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator, that is merely one possibility. It actually scientifically implies that the universe is the result of a fixed system. All 8 of those are possibilities.2 of them (the first two) do not require anything more than what we see in front of us right now, and are therefore favoured by Occam's razor. Only one (the sixth one) favours the Christian religion... and even then it's one of many. 1/8 for the Creator God choice = 12.5% 1/5 of that just from what I listed (probably worse odds...) to get to the Christian Creator God = 2.5% So, yes, given a fine-tuned universe assumption, science can say something about a Creator Christian God... it is then 97.5% likely that this God does not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So, yes, given a fine-tuned universe assumption, science can say something about a Creator Christian God... it is then 97.5% likely that this God does not exist. That conclusion requires some hidden assumptions about probability distributions. My position is that nobody can produce a meaningful observation-based probability argument for or against the Goddidit hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If scientific methods were not up to the task of learning more about the Creator God whose effects we can see scientifically, would you be willing to read the Bible or go to church to learn more? If scientific methods were not up to the task of learning more about talking rabbits, would you be willing to read Alice in Wonderland to learn more?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
JonF writes: That conclusion requires some hidden assumptions about probability distributions. My position is that nobody can produce a meaningful observation-based probability argument for or against the Goddidit hypothesis. I whole-heartedly agree.I just explained it more colourfully (If anyone can understand why my values are bogus, they should be able to apply the same conceptual idea to see why any other value-based probability would be bogus). Edited by Stile, : These are not the edits you're looking for
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator. Do you know whether those 20 parameters are independent? Are you or anyone else able to vary one of them independently and to then show us that the other 19 remain constant? What if only all of the parameters are a function of a single master parameter? What if that master parameter cannot be changed? Because if you cannot provide a correct answer to the above questions, then the actual number of parameters is of no probative value. Can a universe even exist with a change in a single one of those parameters by 1%, given our inability to know if the parameters are truly independent? If you cannot demonstrate an answer this question, fine tuning is no argument at all. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Not true. Did you watch the video clip? He totally disagreed with Craig Ventner regarding the fact there is not one LUCA. Dawkins obviously is either unaware of the Koonin papers and is in denial. Koonin says we have to stop talking about the tree of life and begin talking about the forest of life. Dawkins has not come to terms with the evidence from genomics. Those are facts. No, those are things that you've made up, as anyone can see by watching the video. Note in particular when Ventner says: "There may be a bush of life" and Dawkins replies: "I concede that point".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Yes, if the RTB creation model predictions do not pan out, the model can be proven inferior to other models whose predictions do pan out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Note in particular when Ventner says: Throw me a bone Dr. A. How about a pointer to where in the video I should start listening?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024