Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 151 of 506 (694935)
03-31-2013 5:17 AM


I occasionally - but not very often - feel sorry for modern day creationists.
Once upon a time all they had to do was learn their book then make up fantasies about what it means. These days they need PhDs in molecular genetics, evolutionary theory, geology, big physics and advanced maths. Soon they'll have to add chemistry too.
Then they have to create their own versions of each discipline - it's an extraordinary feat.
They are very special people, these modern creationists.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

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


Message 152 of 506 (694938)
03-31-2013 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:17 PM


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.
That's an unsupported assertion. I asked for a reference or proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by designtheorist, posted 03-30-2013 8:17 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by designtheorist, posted 04-04-2013 12:35 AM JonF has not replied

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


(1)
Message 153 of 506 (694939)
03-31-2013 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
It appears to me that Hugh Ross has figured out what to make of it and has developed a reasonable and testable creation model.
After all this blather you can't bring yourself to present, much less defend, this alleged model.
The tests discussed in the last thread were mainly attempts to sneak creationist ideas into science.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

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

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


Message 154 of 506 (694941)
03-31-2013 8:09 AM


Still no evidence from DT yet?
Or a response to a H0 of his god not existing?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2013 10:54 AM Larni has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 506 (694952)
03-31-2013 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Larni
03-31-2013 8:09 AM


Or a response to a H0 of his god not existing?
Designtheorist has answered about 1/4 of the replies he's gotten, with many of his responses generating more questions. And the thread has been open less than a week. Be patient.

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 154 by Larni, posted 03-31-2013 8:09 AM Larni has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 156 of 506 (694995)
04-01-2013 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
This is one thing I struggle to understand.
dt writes:
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.
Why do so many creationists always want to quote from a few scientists who publish popular books or appear on tv? Why not rather quote from the scientific research of scientists? I mean, that's what science is about; research. You know, from thesises, research papers, etc.?
As an example, I'll provide some US figures.
Just in the US in 2008, there were 5000 people with PhD's in Astronomy/Astrophysics and 41 500 in physics. Living scientists. With PhD's. That's right, just in the US. This excludes the figures from the rest of the world. This also excludes MSc's, of which you'll find many, many more.
Why are the hundreds of thousands of other specialists, with the same qualifications as the popular scientists, always ignored by creationists? Too much work to read more than a few creationist websites?

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 157 of 506 (695018)
04-01-2013 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by designtheorist
03-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
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.
Let's use the lottery as our example. For ease of mathematics, let's say that the odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 100 million. Let's also assume that there has been one winner in each of the last 5 lotterys. Those winners are John A., Ralph P., Frank L., Susan B., and Polly P, in that order. What are the chances that those specific people would have won the lottery? Well, that is 1 in 100 million to the 5th power, or 1 in 10^40. That's a pretty big number. We can only assume that the lottery had to be fine tuned so that those specific people would win. But is that right . . .
What this model ignores is all of the losers. That is what you are ignoring as well. You need to show that our universe is the only universe in existence. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake as the lottery example above.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by bluegenes, posted 04-01-2013 5:34 PM Taq has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(4)
Message 158 of 506 (695021)
04-01-2013 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Taq
04-01-2013 4:50 PM


Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Taq writes:
You need to show that our universe is the only universe in existence. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake as the lottery example above.
Actually, he's making an obvious mistake if there's only one "universe"*. The jagged puddle will inevitably fit the jagged pothole whether there's one pothole or trillions.
Looking at one world and saying "how amazing! The physical nature of this world is exactly right for its contents" is always silly. What else would we expect? If the world was wrongly "tuned" for something it contained, then a good argument could be made for the supernatural insertion of that something into the world.
Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism. The pothole must necessarily fit its puddle.
Ironically, many I.D. folk see any confirmations of the fitness of the world for life as supporting evidence for supernatural design. Then they proceed to contradict themselves by arguing for the impossibility of a natural origin of life, and for the impossibility of the natural evolution of complex creatures.
In other words, they argue that this world is fine tuned for life and isn't fine tuned for life.
Personally, I find that hilarious.
*I prefer the term "world" for the known universe, and the phrase "many worlds" for the idea that there might be others. Surely all worlds should be part of what's universal. Hopefully, the word "multiverse" will disappear from the language. WTF is a "verse" in this context?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 04-01-2013 4:50 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 2:14 AM bluegenes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 506 (695034)
04-02-2013 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by bluegenes
04-01-2013 5:34 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Actually, he's making an obvious mistake if there's only one "universe"*. The jagged puddle will inevitably fit the jagged pothole whether there's one pothole or trillions.
I think this is an unjustified denial that there is a fine tuning issue. I think there is an issue. With the wrong combination of constants we might end up with a universe in which there is no fusion, or no supernovae, or in which the inflationary period of the Big Band does not exist, etc. I think many of the possibilities cannot be solved by life evolving to fit whatever conditions are produced. If indeed the constants could be changed in arbitrary ways, the result might be no universe or a universally life free universe.
There is lots of stuff written on the topic, and a quick search on google scholar for fine tuning turns up as many scholarly journal papers on the topic as you might care to read. It is certainly a bogus claim that scientists simply 'don't know what to make' of fine tuning, as someone has claimed.

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 158 by bluegenes, posted 04-01-2013 5:34 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by bluegenes, posted 04-02-2013 4:08 AM NoNukes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 160 of 506 (695038)
04-02-2013 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
04-02-2013 2:14 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
NoNukes writes:
bluegenes writes:
Actually, he's making an obvious mistake if there's only one "universe"*. The jagged puddle will inevitably fit the jagged pothole whether there's one pothole or trillions.
I think this is an unjustified denial that there is a fine tuning issue. I think there is an issue. With the wrong combination of constants we might end up with a universe in which there is no fusion, or no supernovae, or in which the inflationary period of the Big Band does not exist, etc.
Exactly. If the pothole were a different shape, the puddle would be. Why is that an "issue"?
I think many of the possibilities cannot be solved by life evolving to fit whatever conditions are produced.
Certainly not. I didn't suggest that it would or could.
If indeed the constants could be changed in arbitrary ways, the result might be no universe or a universally life free universe.
Indeed. If the history of the U.S.A. had followed a different course, you'd be unlikely to have a president called Barak Obama.
NoNukes writes:
There is lots of stuff written on the topic, and a quick search on google scholar for fine tuning turns up as many scholarly journal papers on the topic as you might care to read. It is certainly a bogus claim that scientists simply 'don't know what to make' of fine tuning, as someone has claimed.
I think that the reason that many religious people have an obsession with fine tuning is that they assume that life (and particularly our species) are the central objective of the world. When naturalists like Martin Rees point out that the constants of the universe are exactly right for life, they think back to front, and see this as a sign of design.
If you assume that the puddle was intended by a creator to be a particular shape, it will appear to you that he must then have intentionally shaped the pothole exactly as it is, especially when you can conceive of a virtually infinite number of other shapes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 2:14 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 12:55 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 161 of 506 (695042)
04-02-2013 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
03-29-2013 10:31 AM


You seem to have a strong skepticism of what is now a well studied and well known phenomenon,
No my skepticism isn't that a phenomenon is being observed. My skepticism is the interpretations being tagged to those observations. The interpretation is that new photons are being created from nothing and therefore this could explain where the universe came from. Again we don't know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere. Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum, then how do we know that it is not a result of those conditions? Next, most physicists tell us that nothing can theoretically exist smaller than a planck. So when you wind everything backwards to a time when it was the size of a zero point of energy, you have no space left for a quantum fluctuation to occur.
And finally, if the casimir effect is truly the creation of new photons from nothing, then you must completely throw out the law of conservation of energy which makes this an impossible event. Personally I think that the casimir effect is some unexplained conversion process taking place, not the creation of new particles from nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 03-29-2013 10:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by JonF, posted 04-02-2013 11:23 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 11:24 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 04-02-2013 12:52 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 169 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 1:09 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 162 of 506 (695043)
04-02-2013 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by JonF
03-29-2013 10:42 AM


JBR: Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation
JonF: Really? Please provide references or a proof.
How about you provide me with just one example where the phenomena has been observed apart from the parameters of the universe, and I'll withdraw my comment. Otherwise I cite them all as proof.

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 163 by JonF, posted 04-02-2013 11:15 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2013 10:31 PM Just being real has not replied

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


(1)
Message 163 of 506 (695056)
04-02-2013 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Just being real
04-02-2013 8:23 AM


How about you provide me with just one example where the phenomena has been observed apart from the parameters of the universe, and I'll withdraw my comment. Otherwise I cite them all as proof.
Huh? Your message seems to have no relation to the issue. You claimed "Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation". The parameters and universe we observe are, possibly, the result of a fluctuation and not precursors of any kind. We see that the existence of our Universe is sufficient for there to be quantum fluctuations, but that's not proof that it's necessary.
If you can't find a scientific reference or provided some meaningful support for your claim that's OK, it's pretty obvious you have no clue about big bang cosmology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:23 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Just being real, posted 04-18-2013 9:47 PM JonF has not replied

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


(1)
Message 164 of 506 (695057)
04-02-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
04-02-2013 8:22 AM


Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum
False, as I pointed out several days ago, with many examples. Do you understand Feynman diagrams? Can you identify hte virtual particles in the image, and explain why we can't ignore them inm our computations without getting the wrong answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:22 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 165 of 506 (695058)
04-02-2013 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
04-02-2013 8:22 AM


Since the only place we can detect it is between the uncharged conductive metal plates in a vacuum ...
* sighs *
Virtual particle - Wikipedia
Stop making stuff up.
You know what would be nice? It would be nice if creationists took a passing interest in the things they talk about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 04-02-2013 8:22 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024