Why is it VERSUS?

subbie writes:However, certain fundamentalist branches of the Abrahamic religions cannot cope with the fact that the bible as they read it is not 100% accurate, and they have concluded that the ToE would render part of their bible in error.

C S Lewis writes: Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology — the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

Trae writes:Well so much for mathematics, physics, chaos theory, blood-splatter analysis and so on.

Trae writes:It seems as if he’s saying one accident invalidates all which follows, but wouldn’t the alternative be predestination which would mean that God is a tyrant.

Taq writes:This assumes that an unplanned universe would be irrational.

woodsy writes:What is meant is that the universe has consistent properties, such as gravity. Once one has that, apparent design follows naturally, with no need for gods.

Taq writes:A rational universe would be one that can be understood through reason. Planned and rational are not synonyms. If you want to claim that an unplanned universe would be irrational (i.e. incapable of being understood through reason) then you must show why this would be the case.

Trae writes:I am not sure I’m willing to concede the point he seems to be trying to make. While we might be wrong I’m not sure that means we must in all cases be wrong. Certainly our reasoning seems to be valid on many occasions. If I am correct in that, then isn’t his quote then implying, therefore the ToE can’t be correct and there must be Goddoneit?

Taq writes:For all we know there could be irrational universes out there, universes where laws are not stable and change in both time and space. I would argue that such a universe could not produce life, much less intelligent life. You first need a rational universe in order to have intelligent life. Therefore, if there are a plethora of universes then the rational ones are candidates for producing life, and even intelligent life.In my opinion, your argument suffers from a confirmation bias. Of course we find intelligent life in a rational universe, it can't be any other way (according to my argument above). However, a rational universe is but one of many outcomes from an unplanned (i.e. unintelligent) process that creates universes.

Taq writes:In my opinion, your argument suffers from a confirmation bias. Of course we find intelligent life in a rational universe, it can't be any other way (according to my argument above). However, a rational universe is but one of many outcomes from an unplanned (i.e. unintelligent) process that creates universes.

Modulous writes:This universe only appears rational. That is to say, within the scope of our evolved environment it is natural that the world would appear rational (something that 'makes sense') since our sense making tools were evolved to make sense of the low energy macro universe in which we are competing.But when you look closely - it transpires that the universe isn't reasonable, rational, sensical, or even particularly understandable. It is marginally describable.

Dr Adequate writes:Let us once doubt our reason, and we cannot reason ourselves out of this doubt. And once the doubt has been admitted, it cannot be expelled by appeal to belief in God, since that might be one more of our mistakes.

Trae writes:In any Universe where 'stuff happens', then properties would have to be either consistent enough for said stuff to happen or if completely inconsistent, nothing could evolve to the point to recognize that stuff was happening. Seem like this touching a bit like the puddle being made just right for the pot-hole analogy.

GDR writes:From my point of view however it still requires us to believe, that at least one universe, had to exist as opposed to not existing, (something instead of nothing), and in that universe energy had to form atoms, which had to come together to form molecules, which had combine in such a way as to form incredibly complex living cells, which had to combine over time to evolve into higher life forms, which had to evolve into creatures that are sentient and eventually able to discern a moral code and make moral decisions.

Taq writes:But there is evidence.

Taq writes:We only need to consider that there is a potential source for confirmation bias. This allows us to understand the tentativity of our conclusions.When I design new experiments in my line of work I have to constantly be aware of the assumptions I am making and how to determine if my assumptions are incorrect. I try to include different controls and conditions that would prove my hypothesis or assumptions wrong if certain results are observed in these control samples. However, no perfect experiment can ever be made because there are thousands of different sources of bias, no matter how remote, that could be giving you false positives. You just try to cover the most obvious ones.With the origin of the universe we have an experiment that is difficult to design controls for. All we can do is determine what these controls should be. The first and most obvious one is "are there other universes". If there are (a big if, but necessary to consider as part of the "experiment"), then any statements we make about the probability of the our universe having such and such characteristic is pure crap. Confirmation bias is very possible (or not) which makes the anthropic principle a leap of faith.