The biggest explosion ever observed resulted not in the most chaos ever created but in a mathematically precise universe.
The laws that govern the universe have been written in the language of mathematics.
If you understand that sentence it should make you sit back in your chair and pause for thought.
Physicist Eugene Wigner stated, "The mathematical underpinning of nature is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it." Feynman says, "Why nature is mathematical is mystery. The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."
The universe is mathematically precise because the laws that govern and controlled matter to go “this far and no farther” - finely tuned to an order of 10 ^ 1,230 (cosmological constant) - were ALL in place at Planck time 10 ^-43 seconds. How exact is that? Imagine an aircraft carrier weighing 100,000 tonnes. If the weight of the ship was balanced to 10 ^ 1,230 (the balance of the cosmological constant which keeps our universe from expanding into oblivion or collapsing back on itself) it could not be off by more than a billionth of a trillionth of the mass of an ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize.
Everything needed for a life supporting universe to exist was put in place at Planck time. That means that even the exact number of neutrinos were put in place at the singularity. Astronomer Fred Hoyle - "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics."
Whatever caused this to happen is pretty amazing.
I bow in worship and adoration in the presence of that Cause.
"For by Jesus all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Colossians 1:16 ff."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The biggest explosion ever observed resulted not in the most chaos ever created but in a mathematically precise universe.
ReplyDeleteInflation not explosion.
The universe went from nothing to slightly bigger than it's present size in under a second. If you think the term inflation makes some sort of difference, knock yourself out.
ReplyDeleteIt absolutely makes a difference, inflation is orderly.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I believe that humans invented mathematics to describe the world we live in. We will never be able to describe it with 100% precision; we always perform approximations.
ReplyDeleteNewton's equations seemed to be perfect, they were proven wrong.
Einstein's equations seemed to be perfect, they were proven wrong.
The fine-tuning argument is an insult to God's creation.
"It absolutely makes a difference, inflation is orderly."
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was orderly, amazingly, miraculously orderly. What made it orderly is the question.
=============
"The fine-tuning argument is an insult to God's creation"
Why would our miscalculations and misunderstanding be an insult to Creator God?
==========
"humans invented mathematics"
Truth is not invented. It's discovered.
The laws of logic and mathematics are not invented, they're discovered.
The laws of physics are not invented. They're discovered.
Certainly humans have invented the language to describe these laws but the laws exist independent of our ability to describe them or even our awareness of their existence
Laws of physics are a description of reality not a prescription.
ReplyDeleteSince God is the only One capable of creating a universe like ours, an extremely trivial idea such as 'intelligent design' is an insult to His abilities.
ReplyDeleteWhy claim that he needed to create such a delicately balanced environment for live to appear in it?
it could not be off by more than a billionth of a trillionth of the mass of an ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize
You compare a ship to the universe, as if we could even come close to describe the universe using precise numbers.
That is an insult to God's creation.
You know that. And I know that. I
ReplyDeleteexplain it in these terms because atheists seem incapable of grasping anything more substantial than that.
So you agree that an extremely trivial idea such as 'intelligent design' is an insult to His abilities... but still use it to describe His creation?
ReplyDelete...and you even pretend to know that the universe's constants are "finely tuned to an order of 10 ^ 1,230 (cosmological constant) - were ALL in place at Planck time 10 ^-43 seconds"
Creator God IS the intelligence Who designed the universe to I would hardly call Him trivial.
ReplyDeleteObviously I believe it is the case yes, God is the intelligence behind our universe. His intelligence is nothing but trivial; it is beyond our comprehension.
ReplyDeleteWhat is trivial is the pseudo-scientific idea of 'Intelligent Design' which pretends that we KNOW what God needed to fine tune to make our universe exist (finely tuned to an order of 10 ^ 1,230).
Again... why claim that he needed to create such a delicately balanced environment for life to appear in it? You know better than God Himself how to create a universe? You know better than God Himself how life started on Earth?
"And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."
(1 Corinthians 8:2)
“What is trivial is the pseudo-scientific idea of 'Intelligent Design' which pretends that we KNOW what God needed to fine tune to make our universe exist (finely tuned to an order of 10 ^ 1,230).”
ReplyDeleteMm, well, I think we are probably saying the same thing but from different perspectives and for different motives.
Intelligent Design is, as I understand it a way of describing what IS, in a manner that sceptics can understand. That the cosmological constant IS finely tuned is just a statement of fact. That the universe IS this or IS that is just a statement of fact to the extent that we know these facts. To say that the gravitational constant is this or that is like saying that water boils at this or that temperature at sea level. There is no morality attached to thse facts.
God created this universe this way. The statements that believers in Intelligent Design present are facts describing how things are. To a large extent, we Christians and atheists agree on the facts. What we disagree on are the conclusions that we draw FROM the facts that we observe.
Are there people who try to have a foot in both camps? Sure, and I know that I’ve come close to sounding as though that’s the case for me. I guess your comments would say that I’ve come more than just close. Any place where I’ve failed to present a clear and unmistakable high view of Creator God is where I’ve tried to explain that the WHY of how the universe IS, is clearly no accident. I’m saying to those who are honestly searching, “Look at the facts that science itself has discovered and see for yourself - This is no accident.
Does it cheapen the name of Creator God to do this? I guess you believe that it does. At this point I disagree. But I might be wrong.
I'll play devil's advocate and pretend to be a theist in defense of thesaurus. Fine tuning doesn't necessarily HAVE to suggest that a universe had to be designed on a razors edge. Fine tuning can more elegantly be an argument that recognizes the signature of creativity from the creator. God's power transcending any law, god could simply have built his "castle" on the tip of a single rod, by which it defies common sense and balances not because it was the only way to build his creation, but rather because god is creatively elegant. Fine tuning shows that god is an artist who cares about how his artwork turns out. Fine tuning is an arguement directed towards skeptics, because it says the universe WITHOUT god is improbable, not WITH god. Thesaurus isn't cheapening god's design, he's recognizing it the best we as imperfect humans can. If one gives up trying to appreciate god's design, simply because we've reached the conclusion that we can never fully understand it, well I think that's just sad. That's like not looking at art just because your can't paint the picture yourself. InHISname, I'm an atheist and even I can argue your side better than yourself.
ReplyDeleteYa, what he said.
ReplyDeleteInHISname, I'm an atheist and even I can argue your side better than yourself.
ReplyDeleteMy side being...?
Theism.
ReplyDeleteI see what he's saying-
ReplyDeleteIf God is all-powerful, he could have made life in a non-lifesupporting universe.
But the fine tuning argument doesnt declare what god can and cannot do, thats where the misconception is coming from. Its showing the improbability of a universe WITHOUT god, not with him. The argument doesnt suggest that god had to operate within parameters, but rather what we percieve as parameters is an elegant signiture that declares "god was here." inHISname is just plain wrong about the purpose of the arguement.
ReplyDeleteLol, its fun arguing for the christian side! I think ill play devils advocate more often.
Its showing the improbability of a universe WITHOUT god, not with him
ReplyDeleteHow!?
All it does is say 'hey, look, we have these equations that describe the real world; they are so amazing and so precise that it must be the result of an intelligent agent'.
That's rubbish.
I asked what 'my side' was and the response was:
Theism.
I don't see how using a pointless argument makes you a good "defender" of Theism.
The point of me declaring myself a better commentator for theism was inspired by your inability to understand the argument for fine tuning. It's probably pointless to attempt any further explanation as I have been quite clear already, but nevertheless... In no way does the fine tuning argument suggest that the universe HAD to be fine tuned, only that it was fine tuned. I'm not understanding why that's so hard for you to comprehend. You're objection to the idea was basically, "god is not restricted to tuning". But nobody is disagreeing with that. Your objection is invalid because it doesn't apply to contention. The arguement goes, without god - the universe is improbable, with god - it's elegantly designed. Which part are you not understanding. Declaring it "rubbish" does not relinquish you of the responsibility of actual explanation. Your objection only functions if god "had no choice", but nobodys saying that. I'm at a loss to explain it more simple than that. Hopefully you get it this time, and if not, would provide a clue as to where your confusion generates.
ReplyDeleteI already wrote...
ReplyDelete***
Its showing the improbability of a universe WITHOUT god, not with him
How!?
***
Let me rephrase that...
How!?
By the way, yes, the fine tuning argument is arguing that the universe HAD to be fine tuned. It had to be, therefore God exists. That's trying to use science to prove God.
If it is not the case, then I don't understand what it is supposed to be used for; it becomes completely useless, a mere description of the universe, which is what science is useful for, and not an argument.
So which one is it since you find it so compelling?
Why aren't you convinced by it by the way since you think it's such a good argument? How can you not believe in a God if the argument is good and proved that the universe has an intelligent signature?
In other words, let me re-state my original position here.
ReplyDeleteThe fine tuning argument pretends that we can describe God's creation in precise finite terms, and therefore, since we recognize some sort of intelligent signature, it must be an intelligent God.
That is an insult so God's creation since we cannot come close to describe God's creation in such terms. We never could, and I don't see how we ever will.
Oh brother...
ReplyDeleteYour stance is both pompous and void of weight. Lets try this again...
The fine tuning argument does not "pretend to describe god's creation in finite terms". It merely suggest that a designer was involved specifically because of the improbability of the universe without god, based on what we think we know about the physical process of universe's beginning.
how?!
How?! Can you ask that question? Im still unsure where your confused.
1. Its contended by certain physicists that in order for the universe to exist, a good number of physical constants HAD to meet a criteria of unimaginable improbability for the universe to be capable of containing life.
2. The universe exists with the capacity to contain life.
3. We are left to assume out of two possabilities for the improbable scenario. Either the improbability of the universe is attributed to a physical cause or a metaphysical cause.
4. Since the physical cause is so insanely improbable, we safely assume that the cause is metaphysical.
NOW, read it again. I did not need to speculate on gods perfect design. I did not attempt to capture gods infinite power with any "finite" description. I didnt describe the power of god in ANY way and therefore your pompous assumption that im insulting god is silly.
And furthermore....
By your logic why should we talk? We are, according to you, going to insult god's creation in some way. When we open our mouth to describe love. Is love not god's creation? What about when we speak of our beautiful children? Arent children grown according to god's design? Why open your mouth at all? Why type on this blog inHISname? Your only defiling the light from the computer. Is light not a part if the indescribable universe?
ReplyDeleteYour contention is a pompous and self absorbed attempt at convincing other believers that you are in some way, a "better worshipper".
Your not.
Theres no harm in using the god given gift of finite language to appreciate the creator's design. What kind of universe would grant art, only to render it useless from the start?
All material is a part of gods design so why describe anything?
@atheistsnackbar
ReplyDeleteFirst, let's get a few things out of the way: You make a lot of assumptions/generalization atheistsnackbar, and are completely wrong about who I am and what I believe...
Your stance is both pompous and void of weight.
My stance presented here is limited to this: The fine tuning argument is not an accurate way to prove that Creator God, who possesses an intelligence greater than any human being, is the Creator of the Universe.
Ironically, I do believe He exists, while you don't, but that's another story.
By your logic why should we talk? We are, according to you, going to insult god's creation in some way... [some more useless ranting...]
Wow, how can someone be so wrong!?. But go on, you seem to know a lot about me! You seem to know "my" logic and "my" theism better than myself. So please, atheist person, go on, describe what I believe and defend theism, I might learn something interesting!
When you are done, please go back to the original discussion and please explain to me why this is a GOOD argument and what does it tell us? While you are at it, why don't you explain to me what the Intelligent Design movement, and its pseudo-scientific theories, is contributing to?
You could also explain why the few comments I wrote led you to think that I would say something like "All material is a part of gods design so why describe anything?". How ridiculous can you be, seriously? Being against the fine tuning argument means that we should not study the universe? Are you kidding me?
Finally, to go back and address your 4-point "proof", here are the problems:
In 1) "physical constants HAD to meet a criteria of unimaginable improbability"
In 3) "We are left to assume out of two possabilities for the improbable scenario"
In 4) "Since the physical cause is so insanely improbable"
The universe we observe is the only one we observe so why does the precision of any measurement become a tool for probability analysis?
My height is 1.8m.
If tomorrow I discover that my height is in fact 1.800000003m, do I suddenly become less probable?
What was the probability of me measuring 1.8m vs me measuring 1.800000003m?
I'll take this in reverse order...
ReplyDeleteYour probability analogy is flawed. The probability for sudden height alteration has nothing to do with the probability of your existance. So naturally, your birth would not be less probable. We would need to assign a probability for sudden height alteration. Perhaps we could calculate a probability for your birth AND timely alteration of height. But this isnt the best analogy for your cause because your birth and height alteration doesnt negate our ability to contrast this event with congruent events. Human height does indeed change, and by calculating a probability based on "humans who do change height" vs. "humans who dont change height", we achieve a workable statistic. Now, being that we know of only one universe this creates an impossiblility in calculating probability correct?
I dont think so. If we understand the physics behind the system we can do alot, whether it be the universe or a system much simpler, as long as we understand the variables we can project the potential existance of other such systems and extract a probability that way. Say we have a number generator that we just created and NEVER used. Being that we know the mechanics behind the system, we can assign a probability for achieving a certain number based solely on that.
Its called projection. Given enough information we can assign probabilities without the system existing in the first place. We can even create a completely unique program whos function not invented yet, but when the time comes, given enough information, our ability to project remains. We can assign probabilities even without designing the program, as long as the parameters are understood.
All my text pertained to the argument. I simply PROJECT your contention into ideas that dont carry a connotation of being scientific, but neccesary in understand where we can take your logic. You stated that we cannot see god under a scientific lense. However, science is merely a form of observation. This is the purpose for my digression. Whether we view god's design through the microscope, telescope, or while holding hands at the park, its by your view that we omit the lense. I happen to think that this is revealing in character. I see no reason why we cannot appreciate god's FINITE design through our finite minds. I find it a silly error to not be able to tell the difference between observing physical imprints of god and understanding the mind of god completely. You would have us think it disrespectful to appreciate the beauty of the universe. Your error is not being able to recognize that the same beauty exists in physics as much as a kiss from true love. You place barriers where there need not be any, thats your mistake.
ReplyDelete@atheistsnackbar
ReplyDeleteCan I point to you 2 errors you just committed and perhaps you'll then be able to try to convince me once more why the Fine Tuning Argument is a good/valuable argument?
1) You did not get the analogy, at all.
Your probability analogy is flawed. The probability for sudden height alteration has nothing to do with the probability of your existanc
I was not talking about height changing; I was talking about the precision of the measurement, because that's what one of the things the FINE tuning argument is dependent on.
Thesauros for example mentions to the number of neutrinos that needed to be a precise number an instant after the Big Bang. What was the probability of that? Why is it relevant? Why is it useful? Most importantly, why should it be evidence that an Intelligent Creator God started the universe? You already said because we need to select between two metaphysical causes but we don't even know what the causes was right now, so that's a stretch... was it what you meant?
2) You misrepresent my position and beliefs.
You stated that we cannot see god under a scientific lense. [...]
I see no reason why we cannot appreciate god's FINITE design through our finite minds.[...]
You would have us think it disrespectful to appreciate the beauty of the universe .
Your error is not being able to recognize that the same beauty exists in physics
What's wrong with you? Where do you get these weird ideas?
I love to learn about the world we live in, about ALL scientific fields! For me, ALL of this is God's Creation. The only point I am trying to make here is that it is NOT because of Science that I believe the universe has a Creator God behind it all; and I actually find it silly to pretend that through Science we can conclude that Creator God did it.
What part of that don't you understand atheistsnackbar?
Do we have to be an Atheist to appreciate the universe as much as you do?
Does the fact that Thesauros see Intelligent Design as a valid explanation for the complexity of the universe makes him more appreciative of the Universe?
Starting with 1.
ReplyDeleteSudden height alteration is not the basis of my critique of your analogy. Probability is . I first pointed out that your statement about "you" being less probable is not accounted for in your analogy. Now, read this next part carefully...
A change in the measure of YOU does not comprimise your ability to exist. A change in measurement for fine tuned constants DOES comprimise your ability to exist. This us why your analogy is useless as an interchangable device for describing any flaws in the argument from fine tuning. Just because your analogy (rather weirdly) contains "measurement" as a supporting component and the fine tuning analolgy contains "measurement", does not mean these two ideas are analogously congruent. The measure of you does not dramatically change the outcome that will become "you".
Also, I never mentioned anything about "two metaphysical causes". I said that through deductive logic we rule one of two obvious causes as improbable. Its either physical, in that science can explain the universe's cause without summoning any further help, OR we cannot. If we cannot, if the cause is not natural, we safely assume its supernatural by default. If not natural, then supernatural. Its an assumption based in probability. Surely you can see the relevance of that.
ReplyDelete2. You may be able to look at a flower and find it pretty, but you do not see god in the flower. This manifests a difference in quality of appreciation. This is an assumption based on your comments about drawing conclusions about god from science. You say you cannot believe in god from the lense of science. But again, science is just another form of observing reality. You make a distinction between the scientist exploring the stars and our children gazing at the beauty in a rose. God's physical imprint exists on everything from a supernova to a smile. Its by your decree that we omit the imprint of god from one scenario just because we call it "science". If being able to see gods design within everything in the universe is not an indication of his existance than nothing should convince you.
ReplyDeleteSo to answer your last question...
Yes. Thesauros being able to see gods design in everything from the elegance of physics to the wit of his children does indeed make him more appreciative of god's creation! That should be obvious to anyone capable of seeing the imprint of design.
@atheistsnackbar
ReplyDeleteA change in measurement for fine tuned constants DOES comprimise your ability to exist.
I don't see how/why. That's the point.
When a physicist says that if, for example, the constant for the nuclear strong force were just 0.1% weaker then no atoms in this universe would have been formed, I don't see that as an example of how improbable atom formation is. It's a description of reality; nothing else. As a believer in Creator God, (which you are not I suppose?), I believe that God made it that way. In other words, as an Anonymous commenter wrote somewhere else around here, constants and physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
So I still don't get the usefulness of the Fine Tuning argument; and you still don't understand the height analogy.
You make a distinction between the scientist exploring the stars and our children gazing at the beauty in a rose.
No, I don't. That's the point.
The rest of your answer is thus meaningless, especially your last answer... Thesauros imagining some design clues in everything makes more appreciative of God's Creation? What a joke!
But what about yourself atheistsnackbar; why aren't you 'seeing the imprint of design' if it's so obvious and/or satisfying? You certainly don't think it is the case; you did say you were playing here... and you don't believe in God...
When a physicist says that if, for example, the constant for the nuclear strong force were just 0.1% weaker then no atoms in this universe would have been formed, I don't see that as an example of how improbable atom formation is.
ReplyDeleteWhat we know about physics says that it could have been otherwise. IMPROBABLE meaning it could have turned out otherwise. So improbable that we must wonder why it didn't turn out otherwise. If we have a random number generator that selects between the numbers 1 and 1e27 and you happened to land on the exact one special number that allows life to exist, wouldn't that not look suspicious? Can you not derive a probability from all possible outcomes? And please, I understand your silly height analogy, please pay attention...
THIS IS THE ATTITUDE OF SUCH DISDAIN FOR PROBABILITY...
"Why teach statistic then? If the probability of anything is 1 in 1, why bother? certainly I could have had eggs this morning, I DIDN'T, so why calculate a probability?"
THE REASON THIS IS THE WRONG ATTITUDE TO HAVE...
Probability allows us to assign cause and effect reasons behind objective realities. Let's say eating eggs was 25% likely to happen in all households during the morning of any given day in north America. What does this tell us? Well, it tells us that its not unusual for people to eat eggs in the morning. So if someone is eating eggs on a Sunday morning, it's not unusual. We can then go and deepen the study and assign reasons for egg popularity etc... But no matter what, there is a reason why the 25% likelihood exists. If we go into another culture and the chances for eating eggs in the morning are 15%, we know that there is something about the culture that lessens the likelihood of eating eggs contrasted against the other culture, and there is, of course, a reason for that.
Your contention says, "so what? agent (A) had eggs this morning. What does probability have to do with it? since he had them, the probability was 100%"
Wrong. Certainly, him having eggs makes it 100 percent likely that he ALREADY HAD EGGS that morning. But this doesn't excuse him from the 25% statistic, and ergo the REASON FOR BEING A PART OF THE 25 PERCENT! Yes, agent (A) ate the eggs, but the likelihood of his choice directly plays a role in the actual choice.
Agent (B), is from another culture where the probability for eating eggs on a given morning is 2%. Agent (B) did not eat eggs this morning, why? It was unlikely. Why was it unlikely? Because the factors of his culture and lifestyle and personal tastes assign a low probability for egg consumption.
Now, do I now need to point to an actual person in culture (A) to determine the probability of a person eating eggs? No. I don't require a real person given we have the statistic. I can project imaginary agents, eating imaginary breakfasts reflecting the very real statistic. I can setup a virtual society with replica probabilities for breakfast choice without consulting the actual system.
THIS IS PHYSICS.
Given that we have an understanding that our system (the universe) could have been different based on what we know about the rules of the system, we assign a probability. What's the probability that the universe IS THIS WAY? 100 percent, now that it's ALREADY THIS WAY. But remember, statistics allow us to assume on the cause and effect reasons for the probability. We can project other "universe systems" and know the outcome of a life harboring one to be unimaginably improbable. Now that we know it's improbable, we can ask "why"? What causes the statistic to be so low, and how did our universe defy the odds?
That's the luxury and right we have by being the stewards for statistical capability. We have the luxury to go back and assing cause and effect reasoning behind the nature of the stastic.
It's a description of reality; nothing else. As a believer in Creator God, (which you are not I suppose?), I believe that God made it that way. In other words, as an Anonymous commenter wrote somewhere else around here, constants and physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
ReplyDeleteYou, as a believer in God, believe God made it that way. Well, how convenient. You don't have to explain away improbabilities at all, GOD DID IT! do you not realize what your saying? The existence of the universe is not improbable, because God made it that way. THUS THE FINE TUNING ARGUMENT via you.
Geez.
No, I don't. That's the point.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of your answer is thus meaningless, especially your last answer... Thesauros imagining some design clues in everything makes more appreciative of God's Creation? What a joke!
God cannot be seen through the telescope right? Is that not what your saying?
This is not a difficult thing to pin on you, your just trying to be dodgy.
These premises are not hard to agree with for reasonable theists...
1. If one could see the pattern of design in the universe that should be adequate evidence of design. (This is true by definition)
2. The pattern of design exists in nature.
3. Science is the observation of nature.
4. Therefore, we can see the pattern of design with science.
I said,
"You make a distinction between the scientist exploring the stars and our children gazing at the beauty in a rose."
Then you said,
* -"No, I don't. That's the point."
(BTW...I'm wondering by what basis you have to see the similarity in these things if not by the adhesive of god's love.)
You also said,
* -"I love to learn about the world we live in, about ALL scientific fields! For me, ALL of this is God's Creation."
As well as,
* -"I actually find it silly to pretend that through Science we can conclude that Creator God did it."
So, what's safe to infer about your attitude towards design in nature? Well, at one point you say you love to learn about the world we live in and that all of it is god's creation. Then declare it silly to pretend that science can suggest the existence of god.
Given these things, I think its more than safe to conclude that you don't agree with premises 1 or 2 as listed above...
"1. If one could see the pattern of design in the universe that should be adequate evidence of design."
"2. The pattern of design exists in nature."
That being the case...
I find it hard to believe that more theists would believe the world to be a more magnificent place void of god's creativity. This is a very safe assumption and I base my conclusion about you on actual things you typed. Anybody reading this can see that.
With that said...
Again I'll say, yes. Any theist, including Thesauros, whom has the privilege to recognize god's creativity in nature does have the advantage in appreciating god's design.
Only time to comment on that for now...
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't agree with premise
"2. The pattern of design exists in nature."
I don't see any pattern of design in nature.
Do you?
If yes, how can you be an atheist? the design patterns are not from an intelligent God?
If no, are you only supporting the Fine Tuning Argument as a valid sillogism based on the validity of premise 2.? therefore you reject it but still support it, assuming 2.?
@atheistsnackbar
ReplyDeleteOk, took more time to read it all and will response today...
Thanks for the lecture sir; let's address your ranting now shall we? Just to show how you are not able to focus on the points you are suppose to try to convince me of...
THIS IS THE ATTITUDE OF SUCH DISDAIN FOR PROBABILITY...
"Why teach statistic then? If the probability of anything is 1 in 1, why bother? [...]
THE REASON THIS IS THE WRONG ATTITUDE TO HAVE...
Why this random attack of my "attitude" towards probability? Why the generalization?
Your contention says, "so what? agent (A) had eggs this morning. What does probability have to do with it? since he had them, the probability was 100%"
Nah I say nothing like that; it's your own interpretation of the very few comments left here...
What I mean is something like this: We observe the speed of light to be 'c', and I don't see what's the point of computing the probability of 'c' being... 'c', or how we can even do such thing.
Your babbling about how we can construct a system and then assign a probability to the components is rubbish for values like 'c'; unless you have an explanation, a cause/effect chain explaining how 'c' got to be 'c' and for what reasons? I would love to know that, it would be fascinating to learn, but until then, I think 'c' is just 'c'...
You, as a believer in God, believe God made it that way. Well, how convenient. You don't have to explain away improbabilities at all, GOD DID IT! do you not realize what your saying? The existence of the universe is not improbable, because God made it that way. THUS THE FINE TUNING ARGUMENT via you.
Geez.
Kido is losing is patience? Too bad, because you're wrong, again. I am in NO WAY saying that 'GOD DID IT' is the explanation. I just don't see where you get your incredible improbabilities from, and I don't insert 'GOD DID IT' in place of any known/unkown explanation for any natural phenomenon that science can, or will, explain through the scientific method.
God cannot be seen through the telescope right? Is that not what your saying?
Kind of, I'm saying that it's not because of scientific observations that I believe in God. Thesauros, for example, do claim that it is one of the reasons why he believes in God.
These premises are not hard to agree with for reasonable theists...
Are you implying that I am not a reasonable theist because I do not base my faith in God on arguments like the ones presented by the Intelligent Design movement?
Dont' forget my previous comment...
I'll take this in reverse order...
ReplyDelete"Are you implying that I am not a reasonable theist because I do not base my faith in God on arguments like the ones presented by the Intelligent Design movement?"
Nope. I'm implying that your ideas are not reasonable because your at odds with the majority of theists who do indeed see the pattern of design. Even atheists often admit to seeing some design, even if they declare it illusory. We're obviously not connecting on this. If we are God's creation, we are an extension of God. If act is the reaction of God's sequencing, are we not directly his artwork? How can God's creation somehow not resemble God's creation? It doesn't make any sense by definition. Now, you can retreat to "Oh, all I'm saying is that I don't find intelligent design convincing." But if you do that you must take responsibility for the baggage of ideology that goes with it, if you are to remain consistent. I don't anymore need to resort to convincing you that science shouldn't be disqualified, you already said that you do not see the pattern of design. This is a big thing to say, and I'm not convinced that your aware of that. Design can take so much form. We could contrast design suggested in the bible to design in our reality and find similarities even there. If our love for each other does not in ANY WAY resemble that which is attributed by God, then why bother with love? Where does pure form come from? Where does immutable and eternal forms such as mathematics derive? Do these unchanging forms not completely reek of god's tampering? How else do these immaterial truths exists? And why do they appear designed? Or more importantly, why should they appear designed at all?
Or how about this...
If it's an insult to god to describe his creation in finite terms, then why would Jesus bother to describe anything in words? Surely, it's pointless for Jesus to try to explain God to us, since our finite and imperfect minds will only insult god with our speculation. Your telling me that I'm ranting and straying from the point, I think your having trouble finding the connection that should be obvious.
Such is design.
I'll try to get to the rest as soon as I can.
I am in NO WAY saying that 'GOD DID IT' is the explanation.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that God didn't do it? Certainly, you can pose an argument declaring physical constant (x) is a reaction from from unknown action (B). Or in other words, there may be a "natural" explanation for why the speed of light (C) maintains its constant finite speed, however what caused "physical" action (B)? Are we not spiraling into an infinite regress? Eventually we reach god. And just because we're far from seeing the point where god grants no viewing, doesn't mean we can't recognize the pattern at the end of the line. The pattern we do see, even if imperfectly.
atheistsnackbar:
ReplyDeleteEven atheists often admit to seeing some design, even if they declare it illusory. We're obviously not connecting on this.
We discussed ONE example: Fine-tuning argument, which deals with physical constants. Let me cut/paste (just a little part of) some Atheist argument to show that my belief in God has nothing to do with it:
"A problem arises from the premise that the cosmological constants are in fact 'fine tuned' at all. This premise assumes that there is a certain range of values that each constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values"
Can you give me one other example where I am so at 'odd' with the civilized world?
If it's an insult to god to describe his creation in finite terms
How can you deduct that from me saying that I don't consider Fine-Tuning argument for the existence of Creator God to be a convincing argument? You are so far from what I meant...
All the rest of your post deals with something else and/or misrepresent my position (that I did not talked about after all); so your post is pointless and meaningless... and you are so wrong to generalize like that.
Perhaps, try to stop your "I'll take this in reverse order... " and focus on the argument you decided to support when you joined this conversation.
Wow! You guys are still sluggin it out. Just a couple thoughts and then I’ll back out a let you two continue.
ReplyDelete==============
@ snaker
inHisname asked a good question a ways back. Since the existence of the universe is much less improbable with Creator God than without, has that caused you to explore the possibility of His existence further? And if not why not?
==========
@ inHisname
“Thesauros, for example, do (sic) claim that it is one of the reasons why he believes in God.”
In my post “Why I’m Not An Atheist,” I give several arguments from science and philosophy that point to the existence of Creator God. I then say that my actual belief in Creator God is not based on ANY of these arguments. That in fact I believed in the existence of Creator God before I even knew these arguments themselves existed. These arguments simply supply bonus evidence or provide a basis for what William Lane Craig calls a “reasonable faith” as secular people understand reasonable. Again, my belief in the existence of Creator God and by extension, Jesus as God incarnate is NOT based on “scientific” evidence. However, Hebrews 11:1 says that faith, in part is the “evidence” of things not seen.”
You then said:
“That's trying to use science to prove God. I actually find it silly to pretend that through Science we can conclude that Creator God did it.”
Are there examples of things created / invented that DON’T point back to the creator / inventor?
In my post “Why I’m Not An Atheist,” I give several arguments from science and philosophy that point to the existence of Creator God. I then say that my actual belief in Creator God is not based on ANY of these arguments.
ReplyDeleteMy mistake then!
Are there examples of things created / invented that DON’T point back to the creator / inventor?
No, for all the designed things we see on Earth, as we know they were built by humans.
I don't see how we can compare what Creator God did, i.e. one or many of what we label a "universe", with anything humans did.
I know. I said I'd comment once and then back out. Let my try twice.
ReplyDelete"I don't see how we can compare what Creator God did, i.e. one or many of what we label a "universe", with anything humans did."
Well, not in quantity or quality but certainly in kind.
"Come, let Us make human beings. They will be made in My image, possessing portions and degrees of My attributes and My characteristics." Genesis 1:27