Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

The 1.6% Solution

1.6% of the North American population says “anthropic principle” and thinks that somehow does away with the need to account for 100's of exquisitely finely tuned constants and quantities being put in place in an instant at Planck time.

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing (atheists think that “nothing” means a really small spot of something) and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly - improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” Arno Penzias - Quoted in Walter Bradley, “The Just-So universe: The Fine-Tuning of Constants and Conditions in the Cosmos.”

While the constants and quantities fit with what we’d find in a theistic universe, our discovery of them and our understanding of them has ONLY to do with science. 1.6% of the population think that if they can just somehow tie any conversation about the constants to the anthropic principle, or to religion, then they don’t need to take this amazing event (100's of constants in place at Planck time) seriously. These people have to maintain this implausible position or their belief system will collapse. That’s how these people think. It’s the way they are.

10 comments:

  1. how about I believe in WHATEVER I want - even in the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! - and you have nothing to say!

    let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL
    SCIENTIFIC MODE* of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely
    divorced from any human objectives...

    this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW
    ATHEISTS*

    **

    THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!

    ***

    hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!

    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!

    see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:

    jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS &
    SCIENCE....

    blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html

    see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL
    DIMENSION - THAT OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...

    Visit for the BOOBQUAKE:

    dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. AtheistsnackbarMay 4, 2010 at 4:37 PM

    The fine tuning argument relies on a designer whom by the very logic of the premise does not require any tuning to exist. It follows that another existance should not require any tuning given the necessary existance of the creator. The argument is self-refuting.

    Or... If the creator DID necessitate a fine tuned system to permit it's Own existance, we can assume it's likelyhood to be just as improbable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AtheistsnackbarMay 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM

    I was wondering when we were going to get to fine tuning, yay! The boobquake!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. AtheistsnackbarMay 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM

    "all physical parameters are irrelevant To an omnipotent god. He could have created us to live in a hard vacuum if he wanted.". - Martin Wagner

    ReplyDelete
  5. AtheistsnackbarMay 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM

    Not all physicists agree on the conditions of fine tuning. For instance Stephen Weinberg's contention is that only one constant is convincingly tunable, the cosmological constant (dark energy). "Victor stenger points to studies that show That if you allow all the Constants to change simultaneously, even by orders of magnitude, then you can still construct cosmologies in which stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise."

    let's put it another way..,

    1. If theism is true then the cause of the universe is god.

    2. If theism is true all facts of the universe are contingent upon god's act of creation.

    3. If theism is true then life can arise under all physical conditions.

    4. If theism is true then fine tuning is invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. If theism is true then the cause of the universe is god.

    2. If theism is true all facts of the universe are contingent upon god's act of creation.

    3. If theism is true then life can arise under all physical conditions.

    4. If theism is true then fine tuning is invalid.


    You just blew my mind, I did not know that one of the most common argument for God's necessity could be defeated just like that; because after all, it's important to notice that the fine tuning argument is just that, an argument, not evidence, not an experiment, nothing but a philosophical argument... so another argument is sufficient. Job done...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Apparently only an atheist can think that premise three follows from one and two.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AtheistsnackbarMay 5, 2010 at 8:24 AM

    Are you suggesting that god's power is limited by the rules of physics, mak? If god is unable to create life under any physical condition, what are we to think of it's infinite power?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is this your version of how Dawkins tries to disprove God in The God Delusion? He makes 6 almost totally arbitrary statements and then concludes, "Therefore, God almost certainly doesn't exist." p157-158 - Priceless

    "If god is unable to create life under any physical condition, what are we to think of it's infinite power?"

    Of course He COULD create life under any physical condition but He chose to create life under THESE conditions.

    Since He decided to create THIS kind of life under exactly THESE conditions, how does that take away from His ifinite power?

    For any observers to exist, the universe has to exist.

    For the universe to exist it must be finely tuned or it will self-destruct.

    You can see that - right?

    Remember it is God who:
    a) Brought matter / energy into existence
    b) Set up the laws of physics to govern matter / energy.

    They are dependent on Him. Not the other way around.

    It is an all powerful God who decided how nature would function.

    To say that He could have done it differently means nothing.

    He didn't do it differently - end of story.

    ReplyDelete
  10. God doing it differently is not the issue, mak. This isn't an argument for poor design, or even the capabilites of god.

    Since it's god's decision, no other possibility for existence is applicable. You can't claim that under other circumstances the universe could not exist, being that under theism, existing or not existing is completely up to god, despite physical constants. Fine tuning is self-refuting under theism.

    ReplyDelete