|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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 Well that did not take long, and was essentially cost free. You simply declared a naturally created universe impossible. This scientific method stuff sure is cheap when done right.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Hi DesignTheorist,
Let me begin where you ended:
Could you please stop making false assertions about me? I have not as yet made any false assertions about you, only true ones. I have called to your attention three occasions on which you made false assertions. The reason we can know that my assertions are true and yours are false are that mine are corroborated by facts from reality while yours are contradicted by them. Addressing your false assertions one at a time:
So let's sum up:
Congratulations for consistency regarding false assertions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of natural processes, not supernatural ones. (italics in the original) - Eugenie Scott I would propose a little side thought that I believe will aid to the main discussion here. Note how Scott and a good many others exclude any discussions in the scientific arena, and will usually turn them away at the door, regarding the possibility of the universe having a supernatural cause. They protest that because something supernatural can never be tested scientifically then therefore it has no place in science. This may come as a shock coming from a YEC, but I agree. The supernatural has no place in science discussions. However that being said I would point out that the term "supernatural" means beyond nature. Today most view the term to regard anything that is beyond what is physically possible. Many YEC's however inadvertently employ use of the term to discuss an entity that is at the highest possible end of what "is" possible...meaning God. But look at this in other areas for example to see what I am talking about. We would not normally refer to the fastest runner ever in the Olympics, as a "supernatural" runner. We would instead call him a "supreme" runner. Meaning that he was the fastest "possible" runner, not a runner with powers beyond what is possible. Likewise I suggest that in referring to God, rather than getting turned away at the door, we reference Him as the "supreme" being and not a "supernatural" being. That is to say that God is at the highest end of what is possible, and not some mythical entity that is beyond what is possible. This therefore does NOT exclude examination of the scientific evidence for the possibility of an intelligent designer, and or special creation. And it removes the punch-line to the good old "flying spaghetti monster" joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
You simply declared a naturally created universe impossible. This scientific method stuff sure is cheap when done right. So are you saying here that you believe that a naturally created universe is possible based on the casimir experiments? If this is the case I was wondering how you get around the problem of needing the perimeters (such as the two metal plates in a vacuum) to be in place in order to have a quantum fluctuation? That's a real chicken and egg problem in itself. Secondly, how do you have a zero point of energy fluctuate into existence in a quantized universe where nothing can exist smaller than a Planck? There would be no time/space to have a vacuum, and thus no particle pair productions. Without which there would be no quantum fluctuations. And finally, how do you explain the "creation" of new particles in a universe governed by the law of conservation of energy? It seems to me that at the very most we are only seeing some yet unexplained conversion of energy in the casimir experiments. Not the creation of completely new particles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
History repeats itself. Designtheorists mouth (or pen) writes check...
Again, we will get to the evidence a little later. That his boom-boom is unlikely to cash... From Message 240 I think it is time to put this thread on hiatus. We are approaching the 300 comment mark which will trigger the summation and Krauss's book is not even out yet. I would like to save some comments for discussing his evidence if he presents any. That's right. The last time designtheorist promised evidence, he failed to deliver it after a year and half. Percy even expanded the thread limit to 400 in order to accomodate the evidence. But designtheorist provided doodly squat. Here he promises during the Christmas holidays to review a Feynman paper after the libraries reopened. This of course did not happen. From Message 244 designtheorist writes: I have not had a chance to read the Feynman paper yet, but you have to realize that Feynman wrote decades before the discovery of dark energy and the accelerating universe. I am interested to see Feynman's approach, but his mass of the universe may not have calculated dark matter either. There is a good chance Bradford's recreation is more reliable than the earlier work by Feynman. Now, you can continue to discuss this but I plan to take a break for a while until the libraries open again and the book is available. Of course Krauss' book came out a few days later designtheorists post was made. I imagine that whatever library designtheorist was referring to has opened after the 2011 holidays, closed again for the 2012 holidays, and then reopened again at the start of this year. Yet no follow up by designtheorist.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
So are you saying here that you believe that a naturally created universe is possible based on the casimir experiments? Did I say any such thing? Seriously JBR, you are completely out of your depth here. You didn't even address the two possibilities that designtheorist did include before writing your woof ticket. What I commented on is the rejection of creation of the universe by natural causes without a single argument of any kind. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
designtheorist writes: 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. But even if fine-tuning is correct, this doesn't lend significant support to the idea of an intelligent Creator. The universe can be fine-tuned and have no creator at all (intelligent or otherwise). Therefore, including "intelligent Creator" in your alternative hypothesis about fine-tuning would be misleading and wrong.Therefore, it's not scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, DT.
designtheorist writes: Come on, Blue Jay, you can do better than that. Think like the scientist I know you are. Before you do an experiment, you want a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis, right? Think it through when faced with this scientific challenge. You missed your calling as a cheerleader. Or motivational speaker. Why don't you go do that instead?
designtheorist writes: Scientists detect things which are not directly observable regularly... ...You know many physicists, most of them agnostics or atheists, have pointed to the fine-tuned universe and detected design.
bolding added by me You throw around the word "detect" here like it's a simple thing, like you can just crunch some numbers, turn the calculator upside-down, and it spells "DESIGN." Then you say, "See? We detected design!" Nobody has "detected" dark matter. What they have done is some math that suggests the universe should have more matter than we can detect. Since this math is highly successful at explaining and predicting the operations of the universe, scientists hypothesize that there must be some undetectable matter that makes up the difference. The situation is subtly, but importantly, different for design. The astrophysicists have math that clearly identifies the "gap" in their theory. They can tell you roughly how much matter they need to fill that gap, and they can even produce some rather detailed descriptions of hypothetical particles or objects that could fill the gap (see here for a brief overview of the various hypotheses and solutions that might fit the bill). In contrast, the designists also see gaps in theories, but they just kind of shrug and say, "A Designer or Creator fills that gap." But, none of you has ever been able to do any math that can estimate or extrapolate the characteristics of the Designer you would need to fill that gap. That makes it impossible to work with as a hypothesis, because it's not a hypothesis until you restrict it to a specific mechanism of action.
designtheorist writes: I'll get you started. You know many scientists have been bewildered and challenged by the Big Bang. What new information about the Big Bang would lead you to consider the possibility Big Bang had a supernatural cause? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis? I think I'll need more than a three-sentence paragraph to "get me started on the Big Bang." Perhaps I'll need to go back and take a third semester of college physics, since my first two semesters only got me to things like Ohm's Law. But, if I think like a creationist, surely I can assume that I have something meaningful to say on a topic for which I have no qualifications. For example, I know that there's something called a "redshift" somewhere in that Big Bang Theory: so, maybe a Designer would have caused something different. Like, a yellowshift. Now, what does a yellowshift look like, and how to I go about finding one so I can prove Intelligent Design? Or, perhaps you could ask me something about voltage and current instead?
designtheorist writes: How much fine-tuning can be explained as accident or chance? How much can be explained some other way? I don't even know how to measure fine-tuning. Does it come in teaspoons, perhaps? Shall we set the standard at 8 teaspoons? Clearly, anything with more than 8 teaspoons of fine-tuning would have to have been designed. In my opinion, anyway.
designtheorist writes: Many scientists are fascinated with the Cambrian explosion. 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? No, I cannot. On the "Origin of Novelty" thread, starting with this post, I tried to do just that: I tried to extrapolate, based on human principles of design, a few predictions of what an Intelligent Designer would have done. But, I was shot down because my predictions were too restrictive. The ultimate decision by Mindspawn was that a Designer could do whatever the hell they wanted, and there was no way that I could force IDists to accept a hypothesis that restricts the Designer to doing anything specific. If I can't be specific, I can't make it into a hypothesis, I can't make predictions with it, and I can't test it. It isn't my fault. ----- You'll notice that I gave you a "Cheer" for your message 99. That's because you actually did the work yourself, instead of requesting that we do it for you. But, I still think both your null and alternate hypotheses crap. You defined "fine-tuning" in terms of some undefined set of parameters, and set some arbitrary percentage of whatever scale each parameter is measured on as your cut-off point for "fine-tuning," and then somehow conclude that the universe could only match this "fine-tuned" parameter configuration if it was done intentionally.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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". Roger Penrose has mathematically shown any naturalistic cause for the Big Bang to be beyond any realm of chance. As far as I know, no one has even attempted to defeat or contradict his proof. Paul Davies quotes his conclusion approvingly. Listen to Sir Roger here. Sir Roger is an atheist, so I think it is fair to say his success is disproving a naturalistic Big Bang was rather surprising. So much so, in fact, that Roger wrote a book titled "Cycles of Time" in which he tries to revive the Cycle Theory with some new mathematics. Unfortunately, his mathematics (in this case) have some serious problems with physicality. Here's a quote from the blog "Not Even Wrong":"I should make it clear that I’m not at all convinced by what Penrose is proposing. He needs the distant future of the universe to be conformally invariant, and this requires all particles to be massless. As far as we know the electron is completely stable, with unchanging mass, and this will always ruin conformal invariance. Penrose himself notes the problem. For this to be overcome, whatever our ultimate understanding is of how particles get mass must change so that these masses go to zero in the future. It’s also seems to me that the conformal anomaly of QCD will always be a problem, with quantization and the renormalization group always breaking conformal invariance and giving a mass scale, indefinitely far into the future." Not Even Wrong By making particles massless, Roger is basically reversing the arrow of time. He is attempting to turn the universe back into a low entropy state. One certain way you can know your theory is in trouble is if it requires a reversal of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I repeat it again. No naturalistic explanation for the cause of the Big Bang works. Also, no version of the Cycle Theory is viable. Something happened at the beginning of the universe that was beyond the realm and power of nature to perform. Some people will try to discount this evidence with lots of arm-waving and maybe some name-calling, but it has to be considered. Evidence for a low entropy Big Bang coupled with evidence of extreme fine-tuning, well, let's just say the evidence is beginning to mount. The question is: How do we think about these things scientifically? If science can detect the effects of dark matter and dark energy, why can it not detect the effects of the supernatural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I find your post confusing. You seem to be saying the Penrose's efforts are wrong. Exactly what arguments that you make are advanced by Penrose being wrong?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
designtheorist writes:
It wasn't so very long ago that no naturalistic explanation of electricity worked. And then one did. I repeat it again. No naturalistic explanation for the cause of the Big Bang works. There's a big difference between not having a satisfactory explanation yet and deciding that the explanation must be spooks. (And remember that no explanation of spooks has ever worked either.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
If science can detect the effects of dark matter and dark energy, why can it not detect the effects of the supernatural? Again, that is simply another totally irrelevant, misleading and incorrect statement. Science can detect the effects of dark matter and dark energy because they behave just like regular matter and regular energy. It really is that simple. Science has never been able to find any evidence of the supernatural because no one, not one single individual, has ever come up with a way to test the supernatural.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No naturalistic explanation for the cause of the Big Bang works. The Ekpyrotic model "works":
Something happened at the beginning of the universe that was beyond the realm and power of nature to perform. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. Color me unconvinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In fact Penrose simply argues that the low entropy state can't be a purely random arrangement. That doesn't do anything to rule out the possibility of a naturalistic cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
designtheorist writes: Roger Penrose has mathematically shown any naturalistic cause for the Big Bang to be beyond any realm of chance. As far as I know, no one has even attempted to defeat or contradict his proof. Paul Davies quotes his conclusion approvingly. Listen to Sir Roger here. Your link to the Roger Penrose video doesn't work. Please fix. I assume you're referring to this Penrose quote about the low entropy condition of the early universe:
Roger Penrose writes: "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010123." But he said this back in 1981. Given that as recently as 2010 he was proposing that the Big Bang may have been preceded by an earlier universe, have you considered the possibility that he doesn't today and never did view has work from 30 years ago as precluding natural causes? There's a couple things I don't understand, one specific and one general. Specific to fine tuning, given that we don't know everything and never will, how can we know that the value of a universal constant isn't demanded by other natural laws of which we're not yet aware. And general to this thread, how come the five minor tests that you claimed would play a key role in actual discussion of the evidence (see Testing Theories of Origins) have seen no mention here? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024