Summations Only

quote:

---

The first is Dr. Hugh Ross himself. He was an atheist until he was 15 years old. When he learned about the Big Bang, he realized there had to be a Big Banger. At first, he thought the creator was probably not interested in his creation (a deist view). When Ross was 17, he made a search of the holy books of the world’s major religions. He tested their statements scientifically. Ross thought that if the book was really from God, the book would get the science right. The first holy book he read said people lived on the surface of the Sun. Ross knew that wasn’t right. He put that book down and picked up another. Ultimately, Ross saw the Bible as accurate on scientific issues and he made the decision to believe in Jesus Christ. If not for the Big Bang, Ross would not have begun his search for the true God.

---

So Ross was the sort of atheist who is all too willing to jump to the conclusion that there is a God. And we know that his "fair" evaluation of holy books was nothing of the sort. Ross has to interpret the Bible based on the assumption of inerrancy to come to his views and overlooks serious problems such as the ages attributed to the pre-Flood generations.

quote:

---

Disproving the existence of something that is immaterial and all-powerful is not impossible, but it is impossible by scientific means. Science deals with inductive evidence. It is not possible to ever get enough inductive evidence to disprove God. You would have to have infinite knowledge and humans will never have that. It could be that a God, for his own reasons (possibly to cause people to rely on faith), would never allow absolute proof about his existence to be found.

---

So the hypothesis of an immaterial all-powerful being is low on explanatory and predictive power.Score another hit against the RtB model.

Don't forget that we're still waiting for his "easy" demonstration from Message 203 But apparently he's bailed on that thread.I have to wonder what his "demonstration" was going to be. A "proof" that infinity is finite ?

quote:

---

No. That's not what I'm saying. It's impossible to disprove God's existence in the same way it is impossible to disprove anything that actually exists.

---

Well THAT isn't what you said. In fact if that is all you meant you might as well have claimed that you believe that God exists. It would be far less misleading.

quote:

---

I think the RTB Creation model is high in explanatory and predictive power.

---

So it can be disproved, right ?

quote:

---

I happened to have lunch with Caroline a couple of months ago at a science conference. Yes, she suffered because of her views.

---

I think you mean that she "suffered" the deserved consequences for her actions. For abusing her position, not getting her contract renewed was the least she could expect.

quote:

---

Thomas Nagel is still being persecuted for his criticism of Darwinism and he is an atheist.

---

You mean that people dare to criticise the arguments in his book ?

quote:

---

Not true. Did you watch the video clip? He totally disagreed with Craig Ventner regarding the fact there is not one LUCA. Dawkins obviously is either unaware of the Koonin papers and is in denial. Koonin says we have to stop talking about the tree of life and begin talking about the forest of life. Dawkins has not come to terms with the evidence from genomics. Those are facts.

---

The fact is that Dawkions had a good response to Ventner, and Ventner's response was at best misleading and inadequate. A point which you refuse to address or even acknowledge.

quote:

---

Again, this is not true. Eugenie was quoted correctly. I think if she had time to really think through her answer, it would have been different - but she was accurately quoted.

---

Then you won't have any problem providing the original source so that we can see the context for the quoted phrases, will you ? Because without seeing that you couldn't possibly know that the quotes were accurate.

quote:

---

My null hypothesis is that the universe is not extremely fine-tuned beyond what can be explained by pure chance. My null hypothesis would be confirmed if the number of parameters described as being fine-tuned are 10 or fewer and that the range of "living universe" values (values which would allow the stars to evolve and shine, carbon to form inside the stars and rocky planets to exist) would be 5% or greater.

---

Can you explain what you mean by "chance", on what basis you would calculate the relevant probabilities and how the proposed test would be adequate to reject the null hypothesis.

quote:

---

My alternate hypothesis is that the universe shows signs of an intelligent Creator if the fine-tuning is extreme and not likely the result of pure chance. My alternate hypothesis would be confirmed if the number of fine-tuned parameters were 20 or more and if the "living universe" range of values were 0.1 percent of the observed value.

---

And much the same question here. I especially would like to know how this can possible be seen as evidence for an intelligent creator, since I can see no evidence of any requirement for or test for intelligence whatsoever.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Roger Penrose has mathematically shown any naturalistic cause for the Big Bang to be beyond any realm of chance

---

In fact Penrose simply argues that the low entropy state can't be a purely random arrangement. That doesn't do anything to rule out the possibility of a naturalistic cause.

A couple more.ANYTHING can be explained by the idea that an intelligent being with the desire and capability to do it, did it. So, if that's all you have it isn't a very good argument.What you need is two things.First, the proposed agent must be plausible - and the more plausible the better. But scientifically a God has a very low plausibility.Second, we need very good reasons to suppose that if an agent of that sort existed that it WOULD desire to produce what we see. And that's a pretty tall order for a God. Especially the Christian God who is supposed to be ineffable - beyond our comprehension. "We can't possibly know" is no assurance whatsoever.In comparison the multiverse hypothesis scores well on plausibility (it's implied by reasonable theories) and given a sufficiently large number of universes it's pretty likely to produce at least one habitable universe. And it's more parsimonious than the God hypothesis.From a scientific viewpoint fine tuning as an argument for God is pretty worthless. It's not much better from a philosophical point of view, either.

quote:

---

I have attempted to think scientifically about certain aspects of the issue such as fine-tuning. I read widely. I have quoted Roger Penrose, Paul Davies and others on the topic. My question is this: "Is there really any appetite here for scientific consideration of these issues? Or, are people here just to attempt to advance their own agenda?

---

Science isn't a matter of quoting authorities. Still less is it a matter of misrepresenting authorities.In the case of Penrose and natural causes for the universe, to get to your interpretation of the quote you abused, you had to assume that he was using the word "chance" in an uncommon sense and ignore his argument (which only worked if he was using "chance" in the more normal sense of the word). I don't think that putting a lie in Penrose's mouth is a very scientific argument, nor one that should be rationally convincing.So I really think that your question is better directed at yourself. You seem very much more interested in advancing your agenda and not at all interested in the science. Not only for the reasons above, but also because you have yet to actually do anything to back up your claim that Ross has produced a good scientific model.

quote:

---

For my part, I hope it is clear that I want to learn from others and that I want my thinking challenged and sharpened.

---

It certainly isn't clear. Consider the case of the Eugenie Scott quotes. You tried to defend Hugh Ross's claims - based on phrases presented out of context - by repeating Hugh Ross's quotes of phrases taken out of context. And you hadn't even seen the source of the quotes. Simply trusting Hugh Ross - when the presentation of the quotes alone was grounds for suspicion - let alone the fact that we already know that Ross is less than honest - is at best a naive attempt to brush aside a challenge - it certainly isn't what I'd expect of someone who wants to find the truth.

quote:

---

I'm not picking that vibe up from the commenters here so far. I'm not sensing any intellectual integrity or willingness to confront evidence that may be uncomfortable.

---

Seems to me that that means that people are actually challenging your thinking. For instance there seems to be more appetite on the part of several people here to see you present Hugh Ross's model and some of the things it allegedly explains and predicts than there is on your part to actually present it.

quote:

---

I did not misrepresent Penrose. He was clearly speaking of chance in the normal sense of naturalistic random events

---

I disagree on the basis that that is not the usual meaning of chance and because his argument does not address the possibility of a naturalistic mechanism that would produce a low entropy. This, you should note is an argument, while all you offered is contradiction.

quote:

---

Hogwash. You have a bad habit of assuming anyone you disagree with is dishonest.

---

On the contrary, I conclude dishonesty when presented with evidence of dishonesty. As we have seen.

quote:

---

Ross's paraphrase is a legitimate understanding of Eugenie's words. She is free to clarify her thoughts if she wants to, but I have not seen any evidence that she has.

---

Have you looked ? And why should she need to "clarify" when what she said is clear enough?

quote:

---

As I said before, I would like to see some evidence the commenters here are mentally prepared to weigh evidence.

---

I would suggest that the best test is to produce evidence. But what evidence are you looking for ?

quote:

---

All I get it contradiction and abuse - just like the Monty Python skit I linked. If you want a debate, then raise your game. Stop calling people dishonest and deal with evidence. Think about the evidence using scientific methods.

---

It seems that your idea of debate is people agreeing with you, no matter how poor your arguments. I would suggest that you are the one who needs to raise his game.

quote:

---

Nature is chaotic. Chaos produces high entropy.

---

Parts of nature are chaotic, but nature can certainly produce local decreases in entropy. If nature only produced high entropy the universe would have reached heat death long ago.

quote:

---

Penrose is not addressing the possibility of ANY particular naturalistic mechanism, he is addressing ALL naturalistic mechanisms.

---

Then please provide some support - ideally Penrose' actual argument - instead of relying on a highly questionable interpretation of one word.

quote:

---

As I pointed out repeatedly, Penrose's calculations have caused him to return to the discredited Cycle Theory as an attempt to explain the Big Bang without a Creator.

---

How is this relevant ? A cyclic universe in itself doesn't solve the entropy problem. My understanding is that it is MORE vulnerable to the entropy argument than alternative theories, because it requires a mechanism for reversing entropy.

quote:

---

There is no way a one-time only Big Bang can create a low entropy universe.

---

I have yet to see any evidence for this assertion.

quote:

---

While his book, published in 2010 I believe, created interest initially, it has been shown to be lacking. I think three different scientific papers have been published pointing out the problems with the book. Penrose would not have taken such a bizarre and problematic position if he was not convinced a one-time Big Bang could not have a natural cause. We could have a full debate on Penrose, his calculations and his book. Perhaps that is where we should go next

---

That appears to be no more than an assumption on your part. Where is the evidence ?

quote:

---

No, you have not seen any dishonesty at all. A difference of opinion does not mean the other person is dishonest. You really need to learn some manners.

---

Of course I said that I saw EVIDENCE of dishonesty. The whole business over the censorship criterion for instance or Ross's quoting of out-of-context phrases which make it very hard to determine what the person quoted actually meant (why would you want to obscure the meaning if you were honestly presenting what they said ?)

quote:

---

I cannot find anyone in this debate who is willing to do that. Perhaps one person has slightly engaged the evidence. I hesitate to commend the person because whenever I have done that in the past, the person has turned on me and started calling me names. There is a "Don't give an inch" attitude here that is not conducive to the advance of science or even progress within a debate.

---

Really ? I think I can find several. The main problem seems to be your unwillingness to present the evidence you claim to have.

quote:

---

You are missing some important comments I made earlier. No one has been able to bring any doubt to Sir Roger's calculations regarding the chance of a low entropy universe from the Big Bang.

---

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.

quote:

---

I haven't presented the model yet but I have presented the an element of it when discussing fine-tuning.

---

You haven't explained how it relates to the model at all, though. How does the model predict or explain fine tuning ?

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

I have and I still have a copy somewhere.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

You won't find much there. Certainly nothing to support your claim.

quote:

---

Where do you see a false claim in that message?

---

I see two claims, both false. I'll grant that one is phrased as a belief but it does imply that you have significant support for that belief.

quote:

---

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?

---

If you state your opinion as if it were a fact - as you did - and your opinion is incorrect then obviously you are making a false claim. And I would suggest that if you claim that something is "easily demonstrated" you are asserting rather more than merely having an uninformed opinion - indeed the implication is that you CAN demonstrate it. Which, of course, is completely untrue.

quote:

---

I'm pointing out that your statement is your opinion and not fact.

---

Well there's one false assertion. It IS a fact. And pretty easy to understand if you know what a probability is.

quote:

---

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

---

In fact you said that you believed it was EASY to demonstrate. And I have to ask what basis you have for your opinion ? Do you think that probability theory is fundamentally wrong ? That multiplication stops working for large numbers ? That infinity is finite ? What ?And why shouldn't you be in a position to demonstrate it ? The math is pretty simple. I can demonstrate that I'm right, and I started to do so.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you don't like people pointing out that you are making false assertions with little to no valid support then STOP DOING IT. Edited by PaulK, : General improvements.

quote:

---

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

---

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:

---

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

---

So far as I can tell Stenger's statement is accurate.

quote:

---

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

---

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"