Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 91 of 506 (694750)
03-27-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:56 PM


Re: Hello Taq
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 are wandering all over the place from one inane utterance to the next. You need to focus on what you are trying to convey.
I am interested in YOUR reasoning. I am interested in YOU supporting YOUR claims. Please start presenting evidence that supports your claims.
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.
What are the chances that we would be here to observe a universe that is incapable of supporting life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:56 PM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 11:24 PM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 506 (694751)
03-27-2013 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 5:22 PM


Re: Hi Paul
designtheorist writes:
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.
Is this as specific as you're going to get, or are you going to tell us what predictions?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 5:22 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 10:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 93 of 506 (694752)
03-27-2013 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by JonF
03-27-2013 2:00 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Regarding employees with unreproducible cold fusion results, you ask:
What is your response?
I would say: "Your fired!"
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.
Sorry, that doesn't work. We have no natural agencies to explain the Big Bang. A couple of hypotheses have been put forward, including a vacuum fluctuation and colliding branes. But these don't work. Again, we will get to the evidence a little later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 2:00 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by JonF, posted 03-28-2013 7:24 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2013 8:46 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2013 11:11 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 94 of 506 (694754)
03-27-2013 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by NoNukes
03-27-2013 5:51 PM


Video Time
I think it starts at 9 mins but there isn't much there. Certainly not worth DT's comments.
ABE
Runs on to just before 20 mins it seems.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 5:51 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 95 of 506 (694755)
03-27-2013 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by JonF
03-27-2013 1:51 PM


Hi JonF
Thank you. I did not have the original quote available. I was quoting from Ross's book. In Ross's summary, he uses the terms "direct observations" and "laboratory conditions" which are not terms Eugenie used.
Ross summed up her view saying:
"She claims that science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions."
Ross must feel use of the terms "direct observations" and "laboratory conditions" was justified by her phrase "One cannot use natural processes to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces."
It is kind of an odd phrase but it seems to refer to the impossibility of controlling God or his actions while in a laboratory setting. Everyone would agree this is not possible, but not everyone would agree that it is the only way to test for or attempt to detect the effects of a Creator God.
Scientists detect the effects of things in nature without "holding them constant" in the laboratory. Two of my favorite examples, as I wrote before, are dark matter and dark energy. We can see their effects in space but there is much we do not know about their true nature.
Again, this quote was not intended to be a criticism of Eugenie. No one is trying to say she is a bad scientist. The point is that there are some bad definitions for science floating around. It appears Eugenie has not thought the issue through clearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 1:51 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2013 11:35 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 03-28-2013 7:36 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 96 of 506 (694756)
03-27-2013 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
03-27-2013 7:26 PM


Hi Percy
Yes, I will definitely get to the predictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 03-27-2013 7:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by subbie, posted 03-28-2013 12:47 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 97 of 506 (694757)
03-27-2013 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
03-27-2013 7:17 PM


Re: Hello Taq
I am interested in YOUR reasoning. I am interested in YOU supporting YOUR claims. Please start presenting evidence that supports your claims.
Stop begging this fraud. He's got nothing.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 7:17 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 98 of 506 (694758)
03-27-2013 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 10:49 PM


Re: Hi JonF
Ross summed up lied about her view saying:
"She claims that science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions."
FTFY.
It appears Eugenie has not thought the issue through clearly.
Actually, it appears that Ross makes stuff up.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 10:49 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


(1)
Message 99 of 506 (694760)
03-28-2013 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by NosyNed
03-27-2013 2:12 PM


Hi NosyNed
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.
Fair enough. Question: Are you familiar with how to construct a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis? Please forgive me if that question is insulting to you. It's not meant to be. The internet is awkward sometimes. I could be talking to a renowned physics researcher and not know it. At the risk of being obnoxious, I will try to explain a little more what I am hoping to see from the participants here.
I am hoping members here will actually publicly offer what they believe is a reasonable null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for some of the areas we are talking about - such as fine-tuning.
Brian Greene did a great documentary for NOVA seen on PBS a while back discussing string theory. It's called The Elegant Universe, I believe. In it, Greene talked about fine-tuning. He stood in front of a big control board with several dials on it - he called it his "universe machine." He explained if he turned one of these dials just a little bit, the stars in the universe would quit shining and the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Imagine the dials have numbers on them from 0 - 100. These numbers represent percentages of the values possible for different constants in physics such as the strength of gravity, the strength of the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear interactions, the speed of light in a vacuum, etc.
Without knowing any more about fine-tuning than that, can you come up with a reasonable null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis regarding the fine-tuned universe?
I would suggest that something like this is reasonable:
My null hypothesis is that the universe is not extremely fine-tuned beyond what can be explained by pure chance. My null hypothesis would be confirmed if the number of parameters described as being fine-tuned are 10 or fewer and that the range of "living universe" values (values which would allow the stars to evolve and shine, carbon to form inside the stars and rocky planets to exist) would be 5% or greater.
My alternate hypothesis is that the universe shows signs of an intelligent Creator if the fine-tuning is extreme and not likely the result of pure chance. My alternate hypothesis would be confirmed if the number of fine-tuned parameters were 20 or more and if the "living universe" range of values were 0.1 percent of the observed value.
Does this make sense? Would you be willing to make an attempt at a null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 03-27-2013 2:12 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NosyNed, posted 03-28-2013 12:16 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2013 5:09 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 105 by JonF, posted 03-28-2013 7:45 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 112 by Stile, posted 03-28-2013 11:47 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 100 of 506 (694761)
03-28-2013 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by designtheorist
03-28-2013 12:09 AM


Null Indeed
It makes no sense at all for the reasons I (and others ) gave. Others have given you lots of alternatives which you have chosen to ignore.
Greene's popsci analogy doesn't tell us anything about the real universe other than that an alternate universe with the most simplistic of changes isn't conducive to life.
You asking this question now shows you aren't comprehending much of any of the discussion.
Your choices like "10 or fewer" are arbitrary, unsupported logically and basically meaningless with our current state of knowledge.
You have no logical chain of reasoning to arrive at any conclusions much less a sentient reason for things to be as they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by designtheorist, posted 03-28-2013 12:09 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 101 of 506 (694762)
03-28-2013 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 10:52 PM


Re: Hi Percy
{Hide non-contributing blather, or something like that. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and note.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 10:52 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 102 of 506 (694764)
03-28-2013 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by designtheorist
03-28-2013 12:09 AM


Re: Hi NosyNed
quote:
My null hypothesis is that the universe is not extremely fine-tuned beyond what can be explained by pure chance. My null hypothesis would be confirmed if the number of parameters described as being fine-tuned are 10 or fewer and that the range of "living universe" values (values which would allow the stars to evolve and shine, carbon to form inside the stars and rocky planets to exist) would be 5% or greater.
Can you explain what you mean by "chance", on what basis you would calculate the relevant probabilities and how the proposed test would be adequate to reject the null hypothesis.
quote:
My alternate hypothesis is that the universe shows signs of an intelligent Creator if the fine-tuning is extreme and not likely the result of pure chance. My alternate hypothesis would be confirmed if the number of fine-tuned parameters were 20 or more and if the "living universe" range of values were 0.1 percent of the observed value.
And much the same question here. I especially would like to know how this can possible be seen as evidence for an intelligent creator, since I can see no evidence of any requirement for or test for intelligence whatsoever.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by designtheorist, posted 03-28-2013 12:09 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 103 of 506 (694765)
03-28-2013 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 8:41 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
What is your response?
I would say: "Your fired!"
Sorry, doesn't work. You can't fire tenured professors without good reason. Why is it a problem invoking a supernatural agency in a scientific context?
e have no natural agencies to explain the Big Bang. A couple of hypotheses have been put forward, including a vacuum fluctuation and colliding branes. But these don't work
No matter whether or not we know what "caused" the Big Bang, if causation is even meaningful in this context, the null hypothesis for all your questions is still "what we observe was produced by known natural agencies".
And there have been several hypotheses put forward to explain the Big Bang, and many of them are still possible. {ABE: as far as we know today.}So don't say they "don't work".
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 8:41 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by designtheorist, posted 03-28-2013 12:11 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 104 of 506 (694766)
03-28-2013 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 10:49 PM


Re: Hi JonF
Ross must feel use of the terms "direct observations" and "laboratory conditions" was justified by her phrase "One cannot use natural processes to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces."
So you should stop referring to Ross's version as a quote and call it a paraphrase.
And it's an obviously incorrect paraphrase, because she said nothing about "direct observation" or "laboratory conditions" or anything remotely like that, whereas "direct observation" and "laboratory conditions" are the central points of Ross's paraphrase.
It is kind of an odd phrase but it seems to refer to the impossibility of controlling God or his actions while in a laboratory setting.
Nope. (And "laboratory setting" is an unwarranted addtion to her words). It's referring to the impossibility of scientifically detecting any difference between a result of "natural" means and a result of the actions of a meddling omnipotent Being, unless that Being chooses to make His actions explicit. No test we can devise can scientifically detect an omnipotent God who doesn't want to be detected (for whatever reason that we can't comprehend).
but not everyone would agree that it is the only way to test for or attempt to detect the effects of a Creator God.
And nobody has ever come up with a means for testing for or detecting the effects of a creator God without the cooperation of that God. I suppose you think Ross has, but we'll get to that.
It appears Eugenie has not thought the issue through clearly.
Obviously she has, and you and Ross haven't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 10:49 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 105 of 506 (694767)
03-28-2013 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by designtheorist
03-28-2013 12:09 AM


Re: Hi NosyNed
My alternate hypothesis is that the universe shows signs of an intelligent Creator if the fine-tuning is extreme and not likely the result of pure chance.
You need to quantify "extreme".
My alternate hypothesis would be confirmed if the number of fine-tuned parameters were 20 or more and if the "living universe" range of values were 0.1 percent of the observed value.
Does this make sense?
No. The choice of 20 or more needs to be justified. "Living universe" needs to be defined explicitly, connecting the possibility of life (not necessarily life as we know it -- this is important) mathematically to the parameters of the Universe. You need to demonstrate that the parameters are independent of each other. You need to demonstrate that your proposed agency exists.
Edited by JonF, : "more" was "less"... whoopsie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by designtheorist, posted 03-28-2013 12:09 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024