|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Well then chose infinite colors other than blue for all of those other universes. That fits the scenario. We're talking about masses of different potential universes, like lots of different potential lottery winners.
And blue for the set of all (not just this universe) life bearing universes. That would still not change the proportion of blue to non-blue marbles. Obviously.
NoNukes writes: We can group the universes in any way we choose, and evaluate probabilities based on those groupings. I elect to group them as life supporting vs non-life supporting universes for the purpose of this discussion,..... This is where you make life special, while saying that you don't. You have divided the potential lottery winners into the tiny minority of participants who live on the same street as the winner and the great majority who don't. You have therefore invented your own problem that requires solving.
NoNukes writes: ....and have postulated that parameters leading to life supporting universes are extremely rare. You don't reject my postulate. That acceptance (for the point of argument) is reasonable because it is the basis for the discussion. We can happily include "extremely rare" in our hypothetical scenario.
You are instead telling me that such a grouping makes no sense, but you are not telling me why other than that you don't like it, or that I am making life special. You are making life special. You just said that you elected to do so "for the purpose of this discussion". I did tell you why the grouping makes no sense. We have no objective reason for making life special.
But for this discussion, life is not special, it is merely the point of the discussion. Life is only as special in the sense that a three on a million sided die is special. Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. We roll the die once (our one universe from many potential ones scenario). We get a three. You've been looking at the three after the event, dividing outcomes into "three" and "not three", then pointing out that the set of "not three" is by far the greatest, and saying that therefore the result requires some kind of special explanation. You could do the same whatever number comes up. The nature of the scenario (one throw, 1 million different sides) determines that every result will be a one in a million chance. It's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The guy blindfolds himself, then shoots a bullet into the wall of his barn. He then finds the bullet hole, paints a target of concentric circles round it, and says to his buddies "I hit that blindfold. Aren't I the greatest of sharpshooters?" Theists who make the fine tuning argument believe that we are here by the intent of their god. Therefore, they draw a target around this universe or the set of "life" universes. Then they use our scenario to claim that the best explanation of hitting the rare target is intelligent design. They've assumed their conclusion. This is exactly like seeing a particular lottery winner or the participants living on the same street as the target of a lottery draw after the draw, then crying foul play, and claiming that the draw being intentionally rigged to get the desired result is the best explanation of hitting the target. The appearance of intelligent design in the draw is only because of the unfounded assumption that the chance result is an intended target. I'm asking you to stop painting a target around life or life universes after the event of a life universe winning the lottery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That fits the scenario. We're talking about masses of different potential universes, like lots of different potential lottery winners. And you think that change affects the probability of getting blue vs. that of getting non-blue marbles in some way? And you are still phrasing the problem improperly. The question is not one of blue vs teal. It's the blue marble vs. every other colored marble. The probability that we'll get non-blue is a microscopic bit short of being one, while the probability of getting blue would be the microscopic bit. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: And you think that change affects the probability of getting blue vs. that of getting non-blue marbles in some way? No. It means that the probability of any colour is remote, and whatever the resulting colour is, nothing requires explaining except to those who have decided, after the event, that the particular resulting colour was the target. Blue is not a target in a chance universe scenario, and our hypothetical scenario is one of chance.
NoNukes writes: And you are still phrasing the problem improperly. The question is not one of blue vs teal. It's the blue marble vs. every other colored marble. The probability that we'll get non-blue is a microscopic bit short of being one, while the probability of getting blue would be the microscopic bit. I am certainly not phrasing the question as blue vs teal (50/50), and the "problem" is an artificial one of your making. I am pointing out what should be obvious to you. Any resulting colour will be a "microscopic bit". Looking at the result after the event and deluding oneself that it's the target is what makes the problem in some people's minds. Why do you think a lottery win by a particular person who lives on a street with seven out of the tens of millions of participants needs a special explanation? The type of situation we're describing is common. Consider the results of the last complete NBA season, meaning all the exact scores of all the games. The teams would have to play quadrillions of seasons in quadrillions of parallel universes in order to be likely to replicate that season. The set of all past NBA seasons is a truly "microscopic bit" of the set of all possible seasons that could be played. This will only appear to be problematic to you if you delude yourself that last season's results were the target of an intelligent designer, in which case it might appear to have been fixed by bribing the players (intelligently designed). The set of you and any siblings you've got are a "microscopic bit" of the set of all the trillions of potential siblings with different genomes that your parents could have had instead. So what? Edited by bluegenes, : Added missing word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
No. It means that the probability of any colour is remote, and whatever the resulting colour is, nothing requires explaining except to those who have decided, after the event, that the particular resulting colour was the target. Blue is not a target in a chance universe scenario, and our hypothetical scenario is one of chance. I've spent a lot of time with this off-line today, and I've been able to convince myself that you are right. Random, unusual stuff happens all of the time, and there need not be any explanation for a particular rare event. I find the rareness to indicate that there probably is an explanation for that the parameters of the universe have certain values, but I do not reach the conclusion that the reason is design. But that feeling is entirely subjective. I have no basis for saying what level of improbability requires that there be an explanation. Here is one take on the idea: Debunking Christianity: Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument
quote: I commend your patience. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
For years now theists have thought they have the final, killer scientific argument for the existence of God. They have claimed that the physical parameters of the universe are delicately balanced — fine-tuned — so that any infinitesimal changes would make life as we know it impossible. Even atheist physicists find this so-called anthropic principle difficult to explain naturally, and many think they need to invoke multiple universes to do so. — Victor Stenger, Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 37
In the passage above, Stenger freely admits the power of the fine-tuning argument, that is, if fine-tuning were real it would be a problem for atheists. Stenger allows that atheists have to resorted to multiple universes argument to combat fine-tuning. This Stenger will not do. Stenger calls the multiverse is an untested hypothesis and refuses to rely on it himself. But Stenger seems to want to hold the multiverse in reserve just in case the arguments presented in his book fail. And the arguments in his book fail completely. Setting aside the obvious hyperbole ("current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe") in the passage below, Stenger makes promises he cannot keep: Cosmologists have proposed a very simple solution to the fine-tuning problem. They current models strongly suggest that ours is not the only universe but part of a multiverse containing an unlimited number of individual universes extending an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that’s the case, we just happen to live in than universe which is suited for our kind of life. The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to the universe.Now, theists and many nonbelieving scientists object to this solution as being nonscientific because we have no way of observing a universe outside our own, which we will see is disputable. In fact, a multiverse is more scientific and parsimonious than hypothesizing an unobservable creating spirit and a single universe. I would argue that the multiverse is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, since it agrees with our best knowledge Now I mention this only for completeness. Although I believe it is adequate to refute fine-tuning, it remains an untested hypothesis. My case will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes. I will show fine-tuning is a fallacy based on our knowledge of this universe alone. Stenger, Fallacy, pp. 23-24 The obvious hyperbole ("current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe") shows Stenger would like to use any tool possible to defeat theism, but he has to admit that the multiverse is not really science. He claims he "will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics" and yet he claims the gravitational field may not be real or that we can make it whatever we want it to be. Recall these classic Stenger quotes: "The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. "In most physics textbooks you will read that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism... We see this is wrong. Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force." P. 151 "In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." P. 152 It is clear that Stenger is well off the beaten path when it comes to physics. He even admits that his views differ from physics textbooks. It is my view that a commitment to atheism leads people away from the correct scientific view. We have seen it with Stenger. I believe I can show in the case of Roger Penrose also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined:
|
The "fictional gravitation" quotes you have used as been shown to be correct within general relativity by real physicists. If you continue to reply as if no one has ever responded to you then you might as well stop replying at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
"In most physics textbooks you will read that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism... We see this is wrong. Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force." P. 151 Do you have something new to say? We already know, and you've all but admitted that Stenger's labeling of gravitational force as fictional is entirely correct. In fact, your post contains no direct attack on Stenger's proposal. Instead it contains an attempt to denigrate his argument by pointing to statements about gravity that are easily defendable. Fail.
current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe" In fact, Stenger's book makes the attempt to rebut the fine tuning argument without resorting to the multiple universe concept, so even assuming that multiple universes is not defensible, your criticism is off-base. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Actually he doesn't go so far as to say that it's even a good argument, and being "a problem for atheists" (which also goes beyond what Stenger says in the quote) is not sufficient. A "God of the Gaps" argument isn't a good argument.
quote: So far as I can tell Stenger's statement is accurate.
quote: Dr. Adequate's posts seem to show that what Stenger has is a better understanding of advanced physics than you do. That hardly seems to be the "wrong path"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why should we care what Stenger and/or Penrose have said?
It is my view that a commitment to atheism leads people away from the correct scientific view. And that's your view because of some stuff that one or two guys wrote about one topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, DT.
designtheorist writes: You made no attempt to wrestle with the evidence in a scientific manner. This is because I don't think it's possible to wrestle with the evidence you've suggested. I don't know how to determine whether the universe is fine-tuned, because I don't know how to determine the likelihood of a given set of universe parameter values. See, for each parameter relevant to this fine-tuning topic, we would need to know the probability distribution. That is, what range of values are possible for each parameter? And, what is the probability of each value in that range? Let's say that one parameter could theoretically take on any of ten values. Are each of these ten values equally likely? Or, are some of the values more likely than others? If we knew these probability distributions, we could easily calculate the overall probability of any given set of parameter values. Then, maybe we could use a standard statistical technique, like p-values or bootstrapping, to decide whether or not to reject the null hypothesis that the universe's set of parameters is random. But, how do we determine these probability distributions? How do we know what range of values is possible for each parameter? How do we know how likely each value in that range is, relative to each other value? We can't assign a probability to any parameter value or set of parameters if we don't have a reasonable estimate for the probability distribution. I do not think that there is a reasonable estimate for the probability distribution of universe-parameter sets, so I don't think it's possible to determine how fine-tuned a universe is. Also, I have no idea how much apparent fine-tuning would be sufficient for me to reject the null hypothesis of no design. It's not that I'm not willing to engage any evidence, or that I'm just being evasive: it's that your question is fundamentally unanswerable with the evidence that exists. Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: I've spent a lot of time with this off-line today, and I've been able to convince myself that you are right. Random, unusual stuff happens all of the time, and there need not be any explanation for a particular rare event. I must say it's refreshing to read someone on EvC changing his mind, deciding he has been on the wrong track, and, most important, saying so. A heartfelt thanks for an honest and interesting discussion. The interesting thing is that we assumed our scenario giving every possible advantage to those who make the fine tuning with intent argument. We don't know that the formation of the world actually was a lottery type scenario. The point I wanted to make is that it isn't necessary to counter the fine tuning argument with anything other than pointing out that it relies on a misunderstanding of probabilities and the "target" fallacy. In scenarios like our hypothetical one, a rare result is inevitable, and is to be expected. The scenario actually predicts it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
So you believe that there is nothing objectively special about rolling ten die once and having ten threes show up. Nope. Every single outcome has the same odds, including ten 3's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
In the passage above, Stenger freely admits the power of the fine-tuning argument, that is, if fine-tuning were real it would be a problem for atheists. First, what evidence do you have that demonstrates fine-tuning is real? Second, if a deity exists it is not a problem for atheists. We will just stop being atheists. I currently do not believe that Bigfoot exists, but if one is found it isn't a problem for me. I will gladly accept that Bigfoot exists, and would be very interested in the biological findings. Deities are the same. If you have real evidence for the existence of a deity I would be more than happy to see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
deciding he has been on the wrong track, and, most important, saying so I had some other choice? Lol!!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 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
The "fictional gravitation" quotes you have used as been shown to be correct within general relativity by real physicists. If you continue to reply as if no one has ever responded to you then you might as well stop replying at all. Not true. I did read the replies and asked Dr. Adequate to defend Stenger's ridiculous statement that the gravitational field is fictional. He was unable to do so and debate descended to "I already did that." "No you didn't." "Yes, I did." I didn't have time for such nonsense at the time, but I have some time as I listen to the NCAA Finals tonight. If you think gravity is fictional, go jump off a three story building and test your theory. Gravity is never fictional. There are different ways of looking at gravity. Unfortunately for Stenger, he screws them all up. There are two (or arguably three) scientific views of gravity. In Newtonian physics, gravity is calculated by attraction. Newtonian physics works in most situations. NASA used Newtonian physics to calculate travel to the moon. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a constant. It works very well on the surface of earth and between the earth and moon. Here's a good definition from Wise Geek: "Newton's first law states that the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, or mathematically: F=G(m1m2/d2), where G is a constant." On a cosmological level, General Relativity is more precise than Newtonian physics. On a cosmological level, the concept of attraction is not used. But on the surface of the planet, the concept of attraction is very helpful. In General Relativity, in place of attraction physicists talk of the "gravitational field." This refers to the extent space is warped by the presence of planetary bodies. The problem for Stenger is that he writes: "The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. This statement is absolutely indefensible. Ask Cave Diver. The third view of gravity is not well-established, but it is the view from quantum field theory. It theorizes the attraction (or gravitational field) is mediated by a massless particle known as a graviton. This view has some problems, but perhaps some day the graviton will be discovered. Stenger's comments violate all three scientific views of gravitation. He is completely outside the lines. No physicist in his right mind will say gravitation is fictional or "the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned." Any attempt to defend Stenger will only make you look silly. Don't even try.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024