|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3858 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3858 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I'm not inclined to take your word for that, as I have no confidence either in your research skills or in your ability to distinguish a successful refutation of a hypothesis in physics from a hole in the ground. Which is why the next debate has to be on Penrose's calculations and his book on Cycle Theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
C'mon, Dr. Adequate! You are ignoring the important issue. Defend Stenger's statement that the gravitational field does not have to be real. Dr. Adequate defended that proposition in message 236. You've already made one response to that message without addressing his defense of the fact that gravity is a fictitious force.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 3858 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I can't do anything with this "new" model, because you haven't presented it yet. So, all I can talk about is the generic idea of creation or intelligent design. I haven't presented the model yet but I have presented the an element of it when discussing fine-tuning. You made no attempt to wrestle with the evidence in a scientific manner. Let's face it, you are one of the brighter minds here. If you are unwilling to wrestle with the evidence, what hope is there of having an intelligent debate? On the other hand, if you did engage with the evidence it may encourage others to consider the evidence also.
These generic ideas have been rejected for the same reason that the phlogiston theory and geocentric model were rejected. That's the only comparison I have attempted to make between these ideas: they are obsolete scientific ideas that haven't been serious contenders in scientific circles for a very long time. Maybe this RTB model is different, but what reason have you given me to believe that? I haven't given you any reason yet. But surely you understand that evidence builds on itself. Until you can begin to understand the evidence related to the low entropy big bang and the fine-tuned universe that resulted from it, you will not grasp the full weight of the later evidence.
In the same vein, I don't know what you mean when you say "intelligent design." I don't know what tools your intelligent designer might have been using to design, I don't know what personality traits might be influencing your designer's specific design decisions, I don't know what laws of physics your designer might have used to design and create the laws of physics for our universe, and I don't know what your designer's purpose or motivation is for designing. If I don't know specifics like this, then I can't tell you what evidence would lead me to accept this design hypothesis. I'm not sure I have used the term "intelligent design." I used to use it but it confused people. It made people think I was associated with the political ambitions of the ID movement that has (or had) a goal to get ID taught in public schools. That is not a goal of mine. The issue is: Is it possible for science to detect the effects of a Creator God? When it comes to the fine-tuned universe, most physicists - even the atheists - admit fine-tuning has the appearance of design and purpose. How much fine-tuning would it take for you to say "Wow, I did not expect to see this...Maybe there is something to this fine-tuning argument?" On the other hand, perhaps you will look at the evidence closely and say "That's not so unexpected. Fine-tuning is easily explained by chance. There's no support here for a Creator God hypothesis." But you cannot come to either position without looking at the data scientifically. Once you look at the data around one issue like the big bang or fine-tuned universe, then you can begin to look at other issues. Then you can begin to look at the total explanatory power of the entire model and look at the model's predictive success. How many people here have read The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics by Roger Penrose? This is the book that shows Penrose's calculation of the chances of a low entropy big bang. How many people have read Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe by Martin Rees? It's one of the better books on fine-tuning. How many have read The Goldilocks Enigma:Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies? You seem to think the RTB Creation Model is something contrary to science. It isn't. It is a better explanation for the data. There is a dearth of knowledge here about the data when it comes to the low entropy big bang and the fine-tuned universe. People assume I'm dishonest or making things up. We all need to get out of our specialties sometimes. I invite you to do some reading on the low entropy big bang and the fine-tuned universe. I think you will enjoy it. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
C'mon, Dr. Adequate! You are ignoring the important issue. Defend Stenger's statement that the gravitational field does not have to be real. I've done that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: YOU have been unable to produce any significant evidence that the calculations mean what you say. Sorry, but a dubious interpretation of ONE WORD is not nearly enough. But so far that's all that you've offered. In assessing what Penrose's calculations prove the most important thing is the calculations themselves and the assumptions behind them, In the only source you have offered Penrose makes no mention of even the possibility of natural mechanisms that would cause the entropy to be low. What Penrose actually says is at best ambiguous and your interpretation is not even the obvious one (and almost certainly wrong when the context is taken into account) So your argument is based solely on an unlikely interpretation of Penrose's statement which you have offered no support for at all. I don't see anything unreasonable in rejecting such an argument. It seems far more unreasonable to accept it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You haven't explained how it relates to the model at all, though. How does the model predict or explain fine tuning ?
quote: I have, and I owned a copy for a while, and the only calculation I remember assumed that entropy must be purely random (i.e. it ASSUMED the absence of any mechanism that would make the entropy low). I also remember Penrose falling for Searle's silly "Chinese Room" argument.
quote: I have and I still have a copy somewhere.
quote: Well at the moment you seem to know no more than anyone else - less if anything. And it's not as if you haven't made completely false claims before. e.g. Message 203 Made up or a lie ? It certainly wasn't true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
People assume I'm dishonest or making things up. That's not an assumption, that's an observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
NoNukes writes: The blue cards represent combinations of parameters that produce a universe in which life might exist. They are not special. They are simply rare. You are making life special, whether you realise it or not. There is no objective reason to do so. Mrs. Vivant won the lottery, and she lives on George Street, Philadelphia PA. Only 7 people on George Street did the lottery, when there were 70 million participants. Nothing needs explaining unless you make George Street (like the set of life universes) special in your mind, and there's no objective reason to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You are making life special, whether you realise it or not. There is no objective reason to do so. No. I am only making life bearing universes rare among all possible universes. So rare in fact that you have no business getting one in a random pick of a single card. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I haven't presented the model yet but I have presented the an element of it when discussing fine-tuning. What evidence have you presented for the idea that fine tuning implies design?
Until you can begin to understand the evidence related to the low entropy big bang and the fine-tuned universe that resulted from it, you will not grasp the full weight of the later evidence. So your intention is to call us stupid and stubborn until we agree with you? Not a good plan. What should we make of your own denials about the nature of gravity under the theory of general relativity?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 |
when there were 70 million participants. This is what makes the difference between what you want to model and the one universe model. We would not expect a winner at if there were a single participant.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 3858 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I've done that. No, you didn't. Your "defense" consisted only in questioning gravitational attraction, not the gravitational field. Like many statements in Stenger's book, the statement is indefensible. What do you think Lawrence Krauss would say of Stenger's statement? Do you remember our Zero Net Energy debate? According to Krauss, the negative energy of the gravitational field is equal to all of the positive energy and matter in the universe. You cannot have it both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3858 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
What should we make of your own denials about the nature of gravity under the theory of general relativity? My views on gravitation are in line with the standard textbooks. Are there errors in my thinking? Possibly but I'm not denying the existence of the gravitational field. That's Stenger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3858 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I have, and I owned a copy for a while, and the only calculation I remember assumed that entropy must be purely random (i.e. it ASSUMED the absence of any mechanism that would make the entropy low). I also remember Penrose falling for Searle's silly "Chinese Room" argument. I have to be honest and say I have not read it yet. I have heard the youtube video of Penrose describing his calculation. I've read Paul Davies talking about his calculation. It was Victor Stenger who wrote that it was this Penrose book that gave the calculation. I plan to get the book before I start the Penrose debate.
And it's not as if you haven't made completely false claims before. e.g. Message 203 Made up or a lie ? It certainly wasn't true. Where do you see a false claim in that message? I was stating my opinion. Are you saying if I state my opinion and you believe my opinion is wrong, then you conclude I'm lying or making a false claim? No, that is not how it works. I'm pointing out that your statement is your opinion and not fact. In addition, I believe your opinion is demonstrably false. But that does not mean I am in the position to demonstrate it at this point. But that is my honest opinion. I'm not making things up and I'm not lying. These ad hom attacks are really not working for you. Maybe you should try another approach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
NoNukes writes: This is what makes the difference between what you want to model and the one universe model. We would not expect a winner at if there were a single participant. The hypothetical situation we're discussing doesn't assume that this universe is the only one possible. You seem to think that some kind of special explanation is required because the "winning" type of universe is appropriate for life when most hypothetical universes with different parameters wouldn't be. That is exactly like thinking that the lottery winner coming from George Street requires some kind of explanation because most participants live elsewhere.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024