Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 506 (694820)
03-29-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Just being real
03-29-2013 9:19 AM


It is believed that virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) flit in and out of existence continuously everywhere throughout the universe...
So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:19 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 137 of 506 (694821)
03-29-2013 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Just being real
03-29-2013 9:19 AM


Just being real writes:
So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist?
You're reading too much into my choice of words. It's a scientific belief based upon evidence, otherwise known as an accepted theory. Supporting evidence is what differentiates virtual particles from creationist ideas.
You seem to have a strong skepticism of what is now a well studied and well known phenomenon, so I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on Virtual Particles. It should be easier to have a discussion about your other questions once you're convinced that virtual particles and quantum fluctuations that happen everywhere and every time are not something we're making up.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:19 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:22 AM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 138 of 506 (694825)
03-29-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Just being real
03-29-2013 9:19 AM


So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist?
The fact that, if you don't include virtual particles in the calculations, the answers come out wrong. The fact that we can detect them in ways other than the Casimir effect.
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?
Virtual Particles: What are they?
Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation
Really? Please provide references or a proof.
And finally, if we are really observing new particles form in the casimir experiments then you've got to trash the entire law of conservation of energy which says this is impossible.
Yeah, but you don't have to trash the entire law of COE. You just have to modify it: "energy is conserved unless it's created and destroyed fast enough that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle allows it. Oh, and if we're talking about cosmic scales General Relativity tells us energy is not necessarily conserved."
This has been so since at least the mid 20th century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:19 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:17 PM JonF has replied
 Message 162 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:23 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 139 of 506 (694826)
03-29-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Just being real
03-29-2013 9:22 AM


So are you trying to say there is some other process we have "observed" that indicates how we might get something from nothing?
Static electrical force, magnetic force, near-field pattern of radio antennas, induction fields (internals of transformers, and MRI, ...), Lamb shift, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, Van der Walls force (which is really the Casimir effect again), Hawking radiation (detection of Hawking radiation has been claimed but is not universally accepted).
This list is not necessarily exhaustive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:22 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 140 of 506 (694830)
03-29-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:25 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
The null hypothesis would be 'there is no god'.
Unless you get round to ponying up some evidence we accept H0.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:25 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 141 of 506 (694886)
03-30-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Just being real
03-29-2013 9:22 AM


Just being real writes:
So are you trying to say there is some other process we have "observed" that indicates how we might get something from nothing?
If we observe one process for getting something from nothing, that opens the door for looking for other such processes. It's no longer possible to say, "There's no free lunch," (though the free lunch may be paid for with a vanishing lunch elsewhere).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:22 AM Just being real has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 142 of 506 (694914)
03-30-2013 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Blue Jay
03-28-2013 11:53 AM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
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.
I'm asking the people here to do their own thinking because I believe it is the only way you will grasp it. It is very easy to try to poke holes in someone else's argument, especially if you don't understand the argument. But if you see the point and attempt to do the work yourself, then the evidence will make sense to you.
Fine-tuning has been detected by lots of physicists, many of them atheists. They do not have any problem saying fine-tuning presents the "appearance" of design. Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose and many, many more have all written and spoken about fine-tuning and the appearance of design. The question is: At what point to we start putting this evidence together and start building a theory around design? There needs to be a way to do that scientifically.
Victor Stenger has written a book titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us." Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a really bad book. You know the book is not going to be what is generally understood as science when Stenger says things like "the moon might be real" and "we can make gravity be whatever we want it to be." Stenger has broken with the other atheists who all express acceptance of fine-tuning, but don't know what to make of it.
It appears to me that Hugh Ross has figured out what to make of it and has developed a reasonable and testable creation model. The tests, of course, are the ones we debated in the last thread - mainly explanatory power and predictive success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2013 11:53 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2013 9:35 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 03-30-2013 9:35 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 03-30-2013 9:36 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 149 by Blue Jay, posted 03-30-2013 10:32 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2013 1:34 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 153 by JonF, posted 03-31-2013 7:40 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 156 by Pressie, posted 04-01-2013 4:01 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 04-01-2013 4:50 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 143 of 506 (694915)
03-30-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by JonF
03-29-2013 10:42 AM


Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation
Really? Please provide references or a proof.
You must have a quantum field to have a vacuum fluctuation. But a universe from a vacuum fluctuation is not possible even if a quantum field was present. If a quantum fluctuation did produce both energy and mass, it would be high entropy like a black hole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by JonF, posted 03-29-2013 10:42 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2013 9:05 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 152 by JonF, posted 03-31-2013 7:30 AM designtheorist has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 506 (694916)
03-30-2013 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:17 PM


If a quantum fluctuation did produce both energy and mass, it would be high entropy like a black hole.
Evidence please?

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 143 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:17 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 145 of 506 (694918)
03-30-2013 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
I'm asking the people here to do their own thinking because I believe it is the only way you will grasp it. It is very easy to try to poke holes in someone else's argument, especially if you don't understand the argument.
The above is a complete cop-out. According to you, your opponents don't understand the argument, and thus their comments in rebuttal are worthless. This is a debate site, and your obligation is to present your case.
You are in no position to tell others to do any homework related to what is likely to be the case. Not given the absolutely abysmal grasp on probability demonstrated in your own posts on the matter. Not given your propensity to spouts nonsense nearly every time you post on the subject of physics. And yes, I can back those assessments up by pointing to your posts
If you have an argument, put it up. If the rebuttals are off base, then correct them. But don't insist that we carry your burden of persuasion.
Victor Stenger has written a book titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us." Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a really bad book
Bad for you maybe. So where are your substantive comments regarding some point made by Stenger?
designtheorist writes:
Stenger has broken with the other atheists who all express acceptance of fine-tuning, but don't know what to make of it.
Amazing. So according to you, Stenger is bucking an established position and you want us to take evidence that he is wrong. Yet you made this comment:
designtheorist writes:
I rejected the proposed test "acceptance by scientists" as circular reasoning that gives the status quo an unfair advantage. I do not know of any established scientist that would propose such a test.
Apparently this kind of test only works when you want it to work.

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 142 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:10 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 146 of 506 (694919)
03-30-2013 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
A Man Said to the Universe
by Stephen Crane
A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Fine tuning?
Perhaps life just adapted to existing conditions much like water adapts to a hole, thus creating a puddle?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:10 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 147 of 506 (694920)
03-30-2013 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
designtheorist writes:
I'm asking the people here to do their own thinking because I believe it is the only way you will grasp it. It is very easy to try to poke holes in someone else's argument, especially if you don't understand the argument. But if you see the point and attempt to do the work yourself, then the evidence will make sense to you.
How do you tell the difference between a single universe with physical constants specifically chosen for life on Earth, and a zillion universes each with random constants of which the one we occupy happens to have physical constants just perfect for life on Earth?
This is the same point people keep making to you, but you have to think about it before you can grasp it. It's easy to think you've found fault with arguments you don't understand. If you do the work yourself you'll see the point, and then this argument will make sense to you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:10 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2013 10:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 188 by designtheorist, posted 04-03-2013 10:42 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 506 (694922)
03-30-2013 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Percy
03-30-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
This is the same point people keep making to you,
Correction. Multiple universes is one of the possible explanations for why the universe is fine tuned that have been offered and not countered 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 03-30-2013 9:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by designtheorist, posted 04-03-2013 10:43 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 149 of 506 (694924)
03-30-2013 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Hi, DT.
designtheorist writes:
I'm asking the people here to do their own thinking because I believe it is the only way you will grasp it.
That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? After all, you didn't do your own thinking on this: you read a book that someone else wrote, and decided that you liked his ideas, so you latched on to them. Maybe you thought about them a bit on your own, but only after they were presented to you. But, for some reason, you believe we won't grasp it unless we do all our thinking before you present Ross's ideas to us.
Personally, I could spend days on end reading and thinking about Big Bang cosmology, and still not understand it well enough to know what I should predict under what circumstances. People who actually can do that have trained for significantly longer than "days on end" to get there.
I'm a biologist. I have just completed my 8-9 years of training in biology, and I know the subject well enough that I am confident in my ability to "do my own thinking" and come up with my own predictions in a lot of areas of biology. If you want to talk about design hypotheses in biology, I'm your man.
But, I am not a physicist. I am not well equipped to work with the subject matter, and I wouldn't trust my reasoning and my conclusions about physics. If I want to understand something in physics, I am entirely dependent on some physicist explaining it to me.
And, frankly, so are you.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:10 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by designtheorist, posted 04-03-2013 10:50 PM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 150 of 506 (694927)
03-31-2013 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
I'm asking the people here to do their own thinking ...
I've done that. The fine-tuning argument is rubbish. Are we done here, then?
Fine-tuning has been detected by lots of physicists, many of them atheists. They do not have any problem saying fine-tuning presents the "appearance" of design.
Can you quote them saying this?
Victor Stenger has written a book titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us." Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a really bad book. You know the book is not going to be what is generally understood as science when Stenger says things like "the moon might be real" and "we can make gravity be whatever we want it to be."
Are these real things he's actually said, or things that creationists have made up?
After your performance on this and other threads, no-one can believe a word you say about what scientists think. Your persistent misrepresentations of their thoughts --- I shall not speculate whether through stupidity or malice --- is one of the most consistent features of your posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:10 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by designtheorist, posted 04-04-2013 12:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024