|
Author
|
Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God?
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi PaulK
quote:
I did not misrepresent Penrose. He was clearly speaking of chance in the normal sense of naturalistic random events
I disagree on the basis that that is not the usual meaning of chance and because his argument does not address the possibility of a naturalistic mechanism that would produce a low entropy. This, you should note is an argument, while all you offered is contradiction.
quote:
Hogwash. You have a bad habit of assuming anyone you disagree with is dishonest.
On the contrary, I conclude dishonesty when presented with evidence of dishonesty. As we have seen.
quote:
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.
Have you looked ? And why should she need to "clarify" when what she said is clear enough?
quote:
As I said before, I would like to see some evidence the commenters here are mentally prepared to weigh evidence.
I would suggest that the best test is to produce evidence. But what evidence are you looking for ?
quote:
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.
It seems that your idea of debate is people agreeing with you, no matter how poor your arguments. I would suggest that you are the one who needs to raise his game.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10041 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi Percy
This is a common thought among many people. The problem, of course, is that the multiverse is not, in the normal sense, a scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis that this is the only universe in existence suffers from the same problem.
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
Re: Hi PaulK
Ross's paraphrase is a legitimate understanding of Eugenie's words. Why in the heck would we care what Ross says about Eugenie's words? When we read them ourselves we do not obtain the meaning Ross gives them. Why don't you instead show using your own reasoning how Eugenie's words might have the meaning Ross attributes to them. Surely you are capable of doing more than parotting Ross. Your continued defense of Ross's paraphrase is simply confirming your reputation for misquoting scientists, with said misquotes always somehow being in support of your pet theses. A problem easily fixed by carrying out the exercise I describe above. 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
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10041 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi PaulK
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, Based on what evidence?
As I said before, I would like to see some evidence the commenters here are mentally prepared to weigh evidence. I would like to see some evidence to back your claims.
|
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: 09-15-2011
|
Re: Hi Dr. Adequate
So, they're not things he wrote. I thought so. Perhaps you could make less stuff up in future. 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. 151 Also: "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. 152 I 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.
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument.
designtheorist writes: It is possible to agree with Paul Davies on one subject and disagree on another. Certainly. But you linked to a particular quote by him (which I included in the post you've replied to) as if this in some way supported your view that all multi-universe hypotheses are unscientific. In that quote he claimed that such hypotheses were just as unscientific as the God hypothesis, which you're trying to establish as scientific.
designtheorist writes: bluegenes writes: It should have occurred to you that if you can't test how many universes there are, then you've thrown out the standard creationist fine tuning argument, and defined it as being outside science. Not true. You have made a leap of logic that is completely unwarranted. Why? The creationist fine tuning argument relies on there being only one universe. If we can never test how many universes there are, as you claim without explaining how you know this, then, by your own arguments, the fine tuning argument isn't scientific.
designtheorist writes: You don't understand falsifiability. A theory is considered falsifiable when it is possible to make observations or conduct experiments that can falsify it. When it's conceivably possible. How do you know that observations and experiments can never be made that could falsify the one or many universe hypotheses? For example, some multi-universe hypotheses make predictions about this universe, which means they can be tested.
designtheorist writes: Science is always tentative because new information is always possible so one theory is not falsified just because another theory gains ascendancy. Of course. But hypotheses can be falsified by observations that are incompatible with them.
designtheorist writes: What makes you think Paul Davies is a non-atheist? He doesn't describe himself as one. You're the only person I know of who has done that (in the O.P.). Why did you describe him as such?
designtheorist writes: It is fine to write about unseen universes, if you are writing science fiction. But science deals with the observable. I thought you wanted to include you favourite god in. Science deals with both what is directly observable and what is indirectly observable.
designtheorist writes: 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. So, when are we going to see you observe, probe, test, weigh, perturb, spin, explore or sample your god? Or any other supernatural being for that matter?
designtheorist writes: We have zero examples of unseen universes. We have many examples of things we cannot directly observe included in science on indirect evidence. We have one example of a universe, and no examples of supernatural beings. Somewhere, sooner or later, you've promised to present scientific evidence for a supernatural creator. We're waiting for it. Is the "fine tuning" argument supposed to be this evidence? If so, why are you objecting to universes we can't see on the basis that we can't see them while promoting a god we can't see? Would extra universes somehow become more plausible to you if we didn't have a single example of a universe?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10041 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Hi Dr. Adequate
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. So if an intelligent being designed our universe then it indicates that an intelligent being designed our universe. That's a very circular argument.
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi Dr. Adequate
Thanks for providing together in a compact place your Stenger quotes and your arguments. Let's look at your analysis. First this:
quote:
The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be.
With fuller context, we can now see the point that Stenger is making, and that the point is not the inanity you attempt to make of it. Stenger discusses here a philosophic view of the nature of reality, but getting away from the philosopy, it is a fact that the gravitational field is a fictitious entity. Next:
"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. Hmm. An accurate statement of fact is based on the general theory of relativity. Any knowledgeable person would recognize that to be the case. Gravity is indeed a fictitious force in a manner highly analogous to the manner in which the centrifugal force generated by circular motion is fictious. What exactly could be your point here?
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. I'd want to see a bit more context here. But I cannot appreciate Stenger's argument without a bit more. What I do see does suggest an error or Stenger's part, but I also know that you picked this quote, and presented it sans context for that purpose.
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 Well, regardless of what you can find in some textbooks (which I must note is yet another blanket plea on your part that we accept a position based solely on the fact that it is accepted science), you haven't made much of an argument here. What we can critique here is your understanding of physics compared to Stenger's. Of the three examples you posted here, two agree with modern standard physics (well, modern physics dating from 1920) and the jury is out on the third example absent some context. I'm prepared to look at the third example again. But so far, your reasoning for dismissing Stenger is not looking so good.
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
|
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: 09-15-2011
|
|
Message 219 of 506 (695306)
04-04-2013 1:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by PaulK
04-04-2013 11:01 AM
|
|
Re: Hi PaulK
I disagree on the basis that that is not the usual meaning of chance and because his argument does not address the possibility of a naturalistic mechanism that would produce a low entropy. This, you should note is an argument, while all you offered is contradiction. 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.
On the contrary, I conclude dishonesty when presented with evidence of dishonesty. As we have seen. 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 would suggest that the best test is to produce evidence. But what evidence are you looking for ? 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2013 11:01 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Hi PaulK
Nature is chaotic. Chaos produces high entropy. Penrose is not addressing the possibility of ANY particular naturalistic mechanism, he is addressing ALL naturalistic mechanisms. Does he supply a complete list?
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. So, we should listen to him when you think he's right, 'cos he's so smart, but ignore him when you think he's wrong, 'cos he's so dumb.
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. Either that or you can't read minds.
He freely admits that fine-tuning would be evidence for a Creator ... Quoty quote?
... but then he argues the universe is not as finely-tuned as we think it is. Of course, his science is completely whacked out. Either that, or he knows more physics than you do.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10041 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi PaulK
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. What are those calculations, and how do the require a creator?
There is no way a one-time only Big Bang can create a low entropy universe. Evidence please.
I looking for people who are willing to wrestle with evidence they find uncomfortable. I am willing. Let's see the evidence.
He freely admits that fine-tuning would be evidence for a Creator, That is a circular argument. Fine-tuning is defined as a creative event.
I cannot find anyone in this debate who is willing to do that. I have been willing to debate the evidence this entire thread. Where is the evidence?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Hi Dr. Adequate
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. Well, he's right, isn't he? The moon probably does exist --- do you deny it? But we have more trouble with models of physics involving things that we can't see. For example, the many-universes model of quantum mechanics works just fine, but would you claim that there are many universes?
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. 151 How about you address his argument using the vast knowledge of physics you don't have?
Also:
"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. 152 Well, I understand his point. Would you like me to explain it to you?
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi PaulK
quote:
Nature is chaotic. Chaos produces high entropy.
Parts of nature are chaotic, but nature can certainly produce local decreases in entropy. If nature only produced high entropy the universe would have reached heat death long ago.
quote:
Penrose is not addressing the possibility of ANY particular naturalistic mechanism, he is addressing ALL naturalistic mechanisms.
Then please provide some support - ideally Penrose' actual argument - instead of relying on a highly questionable interpretation of one word.
quote:
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.
How is this relevant ? A cyclic universe in itself doesn't solve the entropy problem. My understanding is that it is MORE vulnerable to the entropy argument than alternative theories, because it requires a mechanism for reversing entropy.
quote:
There is no way a one-time only Big Bang can create a low entropy universe.
I have yet to see any evidence for this assertion.
quote:
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
That appears to be no more than an assumption on your part. Where is the evidence ?
quote:
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.
Of course I said that I saw EVIDENCE of dishonesty. The whole business over the censorship criterion for instance or Ross's quoting of out-of-context phrases which make it very hard to determine what the person quoted actually meant (why would you want to obscure the meaning if you were honestly presenting what they said ?)
quote:
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.
Really ? I think I can find several. The main problem seems to be your unwillingness to present the evidence you claim to have.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi PaulK
But, at least, he is engaging the evidence. I cannot find anyone in this debate who is willing to do that. I don't get it. What do you think could possible go wrong if you present evidence and people refuse to engage it, or just hand wave it away, or whatever? I mean, lets assume you're 100% correct and you have some great evidence. Then you show it to the stupid evolutionists and they laugh it off. So what? What would that do other than make us out to be a bunch of idiots? How could that be any reason for you to withhold it? Because honestly, you're coming off as a charlatan.
|
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: 09-15-2011
|
Re: Hi PaulK
So, we should listen to him when you think he's right, 'cos he's so smart, but ignore him when you think he's wrong, 'cos he's so dumb. 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.
|
™ Version 4.2