Summations Only

See Message 188 above.

I have attempted to think scientifically about certain aspects of the issue such as fine-tuning. I read widely. I have quoted Roger Penrose, Paul Davies and others on the topic. My question is this: "Is there really any appetite here for scientific consideration of these issues? Or, are people here just to attempt to advance their own agenda?"For my part, I hope it is clear that I want to learn from others and that I want my thinking challenged and sharpened. I'm not picking that vibe up from the commenters here so far. I'm not sensing any intellectual integrity or willingness to confront evidence that may be uncomfortable. Well, that's great to know. I understand the cosmology much better than the biology side so I hope to learn from you.

Regarding physicists speaking on fine-tuning as having the appearance of design, you asked: Yes. Yes, I can. The first series of quotes are from scientists specializing in physics, cosmology and mathematics who I believe are atheists. I might be wrong about a few of them, but I know I'm right about most. I could have included many more but I have to draw the line somewhere. I tried to avoid quotes regarding fine-tuning in biology and chemistry as much as possible to focus on fine-tuning in the cosmos.Next, follows a series of quotes from Christians in physics, cosmology and mathematics. Again, this is just a select few.Quotes from atheists
The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. — James Hopwood Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, (1931) page 137."A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." - George Ellis (British astrophysicist)"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". - Paul Davies (British astrophysicist)"The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". - Paul Davies"I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip." - Paul DaviesMost people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe . . & entirely compatible with science. Freeman Dyson (Dyson is not using the term "intelligent design" here as referring to the "Intelligent Design" movement. Do not consider this quote an endorsement of ID)how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. - Steven Weinberg
(Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics, writing in the journal Scientific American)As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? - George Greenstein (astronomer) Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27"I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." - Roger Penrose (mathematician and author)"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." - Tony Rothman (physicist)"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic)"There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." - George Smoot"The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated." - George Smoot"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God — the design argument of Paley — updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." — Edward (Ted) Harrison (cosmologist)Quotes from Christians
(Sandage and Tipler were atheists but became Christians, at least in part, because of their cosmology)"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." - Alan Sandage (winner of the Crafoord Prize in Astronomy)"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural." - Allan Sandage, astronomer May 9, 1996"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." - Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics)"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." - Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist)"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." - Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)"As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." - Edward Milne (British cosmologist)"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." - Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)Regarding Stenger, you ask: Those are things he wrote, paraphrased of course. I read his book titled Fallacy of Fine-tuning, or more accurately I read half of it. The book was so bad I could not finish it. The book is rubbish. Stenger feels fine-tuning does give the appearance of design or he would not try to argue the universe is not fine-tuned. Such an argument would be fine if he had any evidence to support it. But when you read his book, you see he does not. He is passingly familiar with some of the arguments but shows clearly he is not able to grasp them, or perhaps more accurately is unwilling to grasp the arguments. You know the old saying "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Stenger is a classic example of willful ignorance when it comes to fine-tuning. Please don't flatter me. Try to stick with proving my comments true or untrue. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

Wikipedia is useful hereThe important thing to remember is that a vacuum fluctuation needs a field. But we know time and space came into existence at the Big Bang. I'm sure you see the problem.But again, even if we could prove space existed before the Big Bang, a naturalistic cause for the Big Bang would be expected to result in a high entropy universe. I refer you back to Roger Penrose to explain that.

As it turns out, Dr. Ross has assembled the largest list of scientific papers on fine-tuning I have seen. He has them listed by scale - universe, galaxy clusters, galaxies, planetary systems, ecosystems etc. He did not author these papers. They were mostly authored by atheists. He has only assembled them. He did this because scientists are not aware of scientific work done in other fields. Actually, we can rule it out if we want to stick to science. I will repeat. The multiverse is a common topic but cannot be considered science in the normal sense because the hypothesis cannot be falsified. See Paul Davies. You do not have to know the composition of the entire deck. We know for example what would happen if the strength of gravity was off by just a little. We know what would happen if the mass of the electron was off by just a little. Some have tried to argue that if one parameter was off a little, the universe could survive if another number was also adjusted just a little. But those types of calculations always leave something out. The physics is so intertwined that it is never just one ratio that is important. Let's say the strength of gravity is a little stronger than it is now, well, that creates huge problems. Well maybe we could fix that problem by changing the value of the electromagnetic force. But the electromagnetic force also has other important ratios. Every time you change one parameter, you fix one problem and create one or two or three more. The universe is extremely fine-tuned because no set of values, other than the one we have, will work. Change any one of the important parameters and you will never get the universe back in balance. Your point is highly unlikely. Life requires organic chemistry. Carbon is the only molecule known to have the unique properties necessary to sustain life. Some have proposed that silicon-based life may be possible but the astrobiologists at NASA disagree. Please don't confuse Jehovah's Witnesses with scientists who believe in Jesus Christ. Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

If you think you are irritated, think of how I feel. If you are going to equate this new model, the RTB Creation Model, with phlogiston theory or the geocentric model, why bother to interact with me at all? Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. You are not showing you are prepared to think scientifically about the evidence I'm presenting. That is not at all true. Go back and re-read the thread. Again, not true. I am not advocate for ID. There is a difference between the ID (capital letters) movement and the ability to detect intelligent design in nature. I appreciate some of the contributions made by people in ID but I disagree with their political focus. For me, it is all about the science. The issue of teaching in public schools does not interest me.I have consistently presented you with questions and opportunities to think scientifically about the question of whether science can say anything about a Creator God. I get comments but very little that is substantive. What I mainly see here is complaining, whining and name-calling. Come on, Blue Jay! I spelled it out for you in crayon. I wrote with increasing detail how one may approach the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis regarding fine-tuning. Did I get a single scientific response? If I did, I missed it.I came here hoping for a debate, but so far I'm very disappointed with the level of intellectual rigor. If you want to impress people with your intelligence, step up your game.

It is possible to agree with Paul Davies on one subject and disagree on another. I think it would be interesting to have Paul Davies as part of this discussion because I think he could consider the issues raised by Ross scientifically. But he obviously has not considered them at the time of this writing. Not true. You have made a leap of logic that is completely unwarranted. You don't understand falsifiability. A theory is considered falsifiable when it is possible to make observations or conduct experiments that can falsify it. Science is always tentative because new information is always possible so one theory is not falsified just because another theory gains ascendancy. What makes you think Paul Davies is a non-atheist? It is fine to write about unseen universes, if you are writing science fiction. But science deals with the observable. If you can't observe it, probe it, test it, weigh it, perturb it, spin it, explore it or sample it, then it probably is not science. We have zero examples of unseen universes.But we do have atheists (Dawkins, for example) who say science can answer the question of God's existence. We have discussed ways in which the effects of a Creator God can be detected. We have to think scientifically, using the standards tools of science such as the null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis. There is lots of evidence to be put forward if people can convince me a real debate can happen here.I wanted an argument and feel I've walked into the abuse room. On a few occasions, it rises to pure contradiction.

I did not misrepresent Penrose. He was clearly speaking of chance in the normal sense of naturalistic random events. As I mentioned before, the combination of his atheism and his calculations showing the Big Bang could not have a naturalistic cause as an initial event, Penrose has returned to the debunked Cycle Theory in his latest book. While the book won some awards initially, several papers have been written about it showing problems and errors. I don't think we need to cover that ground again. Hogwash. You have a bad habit of assuming anyone you disagree with is dishonest. Such a broad brush paints ugly pictures. Ross's paraphrase is a legitimate understanding of Eugenie's words. She is free to clarify her thoughts if she wants to, but I have not seen any evidence that she has. As I said before, I would like to see some evidence the commenters here are mentally prepared to weigh evidence. The evidence is sadly lacking. All I get it contradiction and abuse - just like the Monty Python skit I linked. If you want a debate, then raise your game. Stop calling people dishonest and deal with evidence. Think about the evidence using scientific methods.

I don't make things up. I am very careful in that regard. Because I did not have the book or the quote in front of me, I was unwilling to claim it as a direct quote. But since you asked, here are some exact quotes from the book:Like the camera, the models of physics very usefully describe our observations. When they do not, the model or the camera is discarded. I am simply repeating what many philosophers have pointed out over the centuries, that our observations are not pure but are operated on by our cognitive system composed of our senses and the brain that analyzes the data from those senses. Those models need not correspond precisely, or even roughly, to whatever reality is out therealthough they probably do at least for large objects. The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be. P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.Stenger also writes:
"In most physics textbooks you will read that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism... We see this is wrong. Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force." P. 151Also:
"In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." P. 152I cannot begin to tell you what a bad book Stenger has written. Once you put it down, it is very difficult to pick up again.The only good thing about Stenger's book is that he clearly allows that if fine-tuning is real, then it indicates design and purpose. That's the reason he has to argue that fine-tuning is not real. But his arguments are against all standard physics textbooks.

Nature is chaotic. Chaos produces high entropy. Penrose is not addressing the possibility of ANY particular naturalistic mechanism, he is addressing ALL naturalistic mechanisms. As I pointed out repeatedly, Penrose's calculations have caused him to return to the discredited Cycle Theory as an attempt to explain the Big Bang without a Creator. There is no way a one-time only Big Bang can create a low entropy universe. While his book, published in 2010 I believe, created interest initially, it has been shown to be lacking. I think three different scientific papers have been published pointing out the problems with the book. Penrose would not have taken such a bizarre and problematic position if he was not convinced a one-time Big Bang could not have a natural cause. We could have a full debate on Penrose, his calculations and his book. Perhaps that is where we should go next. No, you have not seen any dishonesty at all. A difference of opinion does not mean the other person is dishonest. You really need to learn some manners. I looking for people who are willing to wrestle with evidence they find uncomfortable. By engaging the evidence, I mean giving weight to it where they see validity and pointing out where they do not think the data or logic hold up. Stenger is an interesting example. He is attempting to engage the evidence. He freely admits that fine-tuning would be evidence for a Creator, but then he argues the universe is not as finely-tuned as we think it is. Of course, his science is completely whacked out. I have provided some quotes from his book to prove this point. But, at least, he is engaging the evidence.I cannot find anyone in this debate who is willing to do that. Perhaps one person has slightly engaged the evidence. I hesitate to commend the person because whenever I have done that in the past, the person has turned on me and started calling me names. There is a "Don't give an inch" attitude here that is not conducive to the advance of science or even progress within a debate.

Penrose is one of the most brilliant men alive today. However, his atheism has driven him to an untenable position. My next thread will have to be on Penrose.

My point is those words, on the probability the moon exists, are not the words of a scientist. They may be the words of a really bad philosopher, but not a scientist. Any what do you make of his comment the gravitational field does not have to be real? Those words are indefensible. What are you asking? You want me to argue against the proposition the gravitational force is fictional? Stenger is not even wrong. Every atheist physicist not named Victor Stenger will read this book and throw it against the wall and wish Stenger was a young-earth creationist. It is that bad. Yes, please. This will be amusing.

First, thank you for drawing this paper to my attention. This is a nice contribution to the discussion.Second, I haven't read the paper yet and so I cannot comment on it directly. My guess is that the authors have left something out of their calculations. I could be wrong and look forward to reading the paper and doing a little research.Third, even if the paper is right regarding the universe as a whole, the planet still needs the weak interaction. Without the weak interaction, the planet would not have plate tectonics and I don't believe the planet could support large animal life.Thank you again for this contribution!

You are missing some important comments I made earlier. No one has been able to bring any doubt to Sir Roger's calculations regarding the chance of a low entropy universe from the Big Bang. Victor Stenger mentions Penrose's calculation but makes no attempt to refute him. On the other hand, several people have refuted Penrose regarding his book on the Cycle Theory.This is not me accepting what I want to hear and rejecting what I don't want to hear. Penrose calculations hold up in one instance and they fail in the other. Penrose is brilliant but even brilliant men are wrong sometimes. If not for Penrose's atheism, he would not have been pushed to return to the Cycle Theory.

This is what Dr. Stenger wrote:"The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.Okay, defend that.