This topic contains 53 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
@Gary It sounds as if you did not look at the link I provided earlier.
I actually read it quite extensively. I am assuming you are referring to the following link.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html
It is an apologetics site. It repeats a number of fallacies regarding science as other sites dedicated to the same apologetic.
@Gary My discussion of the mathematical improbabilities of our universe without a creator is most definitely based upon scientific analysis.
Here is a good summary of what you are claiming. You are invoking what is called the Anthropic principle. This is not a critique or an apologetic for a multiverse. This is an examination of all the various positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
This is the main critique.
Critics of the Barrow and Tipler SAP claim that it is neither testable nor falsifiable, and thus is not a scientific statement but rather a philosophical one. The same criticism has been leveled against the hypothesis of a multiverse, although some argue that it does make falsifiable predictions.
In a lecture titled “The Confusion of Cause and Effect in Bad Science,” the paleophysicist Caroline Miller said:[60]“The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a nonanthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it.”
Similarly,Stephen Jay Gould,[61][62]Michael Shermer,[63]and others claim that the stronger versions of the Anthropic Principle seem to reverse known causes and effects. Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to housebarnacles. These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having beenfine-tunedthroughnatural selectionto adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa.
Here is an example of apparent fine tuning. And it illustrates the problem with assigning god as a fine tuner. It tends to stop people looking for scientific answers.
Spacetime today is flat, not curved—meaning that two rays of light that start out parallel stay parallel, neither converging nor diverging. This has been confirmed to exquisite precision by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the radiation left over from the big bang. That means that a cosmological parameter called Omega, which dials in the curvature of spacetime, is very close to one. But for today’s universe to have an Omega anywhere near one, its value just one second after the big bang had to be exactly one to precision of about fourteen decimal places. This smacked of fine-tuning.
But in 1979, the physicist Alan Guth, now of MIT, discovered a way to get that value of Omega without fine-tuning. Guth showed that in the instants after the big bang, the universe would have undergone a period of exponential expansion. This sudden expansion, which Guth called “inflation,” would have rendered our observable universe flat regardless of the value of Omega before inflation began.
Imagine starting with a small balloon whose surface is curved and blowing it up some forty orders of magnitude. Any small piece of the balloon’s surface will now look flat. In the inflationary view, that’s what happened to our universe—our local patch of spacetime looks flat regardless of the curvature of spacetime before inflation began.@Richard, I think we have explored our differences about as far as we can . So rather than seek to be the last man standing, ;-), I just want to say I appreciate the dialogue. It has been beneficial. Thank you.
@Gary I think we have explored our differences about as far as we can .
Fair enough. Thank you.
@Richard I think you quoted me instead of Gary above haha. But in reference to your counter-argument before that.. I will answer all of that by again stating, that you don’t seem to be grasping my argument. You keep pushing what I’m saying into the avenue of thinking that there exists a scientific theory for God, in that we can actually use science to measure God. I’m not saying this at all, I’m saying quite the opposite, we cannot, as you said, begin to create a scientific theory for God given that no such entity is present in our universe, God exists WAY beyond our technology and methods of science. What I am saying, hopefully for the last time haha, is that we can use the scientific observations of the universe already in the place, and philosophically and logically postulate an intelligence behind such things as the universe, especially when counter-arguments are basically impossible by all standards of logic i.e. a universe born out nothing ‘for some reason’ and the most plausible counter-argument, the multiverse theory, which hasn’t even a shred of scientific evidence going for it. It always struck me as a wild stab in the dark in the face of such a gaping hole left with the Big Bang paradox of the fact that non-believers had to account for the fact the universe existed, and so did we, and that such a thing had to come from somewhere.
And please stop saying that I am only believing in God for comfort and meaning, I’m sorry but its incredibly patronising. The problem is, you are putting your own personal experiences and perceptions onto to other people when everyone else here has had a completely different experience with God and spirituality that you have had. I was an agnostic verging on atheist, like you, for a good many years before I came to believe in God (and that was actually based off the very observations I am giving here as many others have done before me), and my personality hasn’t really changed that much. I’m not afraid of the consequence that God is not real because when I die and if God isn’t real, then I guess I won’t really give a shit. It doesn’t give me meaning either, my life at the moment and what I do with it gives me meaning, what points me to God is what I see and feel is there when I look at history and universe.
@John Its a first for me at least, though I was usually on the receiving end xD
Also @Richard, the fine-tuning of the universe is most definitely based on scientific and mathematical observation, for example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf, explains how the very premise that we exist is a “miraculous” simply because of the sheer amount of constants that had be just right. And whereas you can make the claim that life has been fine-tuned via natural selection over a very long period of time, you cannot make such a claim for the universe and its laws of control, for its such elements that influence everything else. We can prove that life on the planet has been changed by controls such as natural selection, but we don’t know what controls influence the laws of the universe, laws and a structure of which is proven to be perfectly suited to support life. I am not saying that such an observation definitely proves that God exists, but I believe that it makes a strong case for such an existence, especially when the alternatives aren’t exactly plausible.
And in reference to what Jesus said about finding the truth to set you free? I don’t think that means there is just one avenue of truth for everyone to find because such a premise leads to conflict. I think Jesus wanted everyone to establish their owns truths, because when we can do that, as your experience proves, we do obtain freedom. Obviously most Christians will have a big problem with this because they just want Christians to be saved, I think God has a much greater purpose than such a limited outlook on humanity.
Sorry about getting you mixed up with Gary
@Shift What I am saying, hopefully for the last time haha, is that we can use the scientific observations of the universe already in the place, and philosophically and logically postulate an intelligence behind such things as the universe, especially when counter-arguments are basically impossible by all standards of logic i.e. a universe born out nothing ‘for some reason’ and the most plausible counter-argument, the multiverse theory, which hasn’t even a shred of scientific evidence going for it.
I agree that you can explore this philosophically, but while it utilizes scientific observations, it is not a scientific observation itself. Like you said it is a philosophical one. I have no scientific reason to believe there are multiverses. To me they are equally probable or improbable and until there is some actual falsifiable theory to look at, I really have no opinion.
@Shift We can prove that life on the planet has been changed by controls such as natural selection, but we don’t know what controls influence the laws of the universe, laws and a structure of which is proven to be perfectly suited to support life. I am not saying that such an observation definitely proves that God exists, but I believe that it makes a strong case for such an existence, especially when the alternatives aren’t exactly plausible.
It’s neither plausible or implausible. If you are setting probabilities based on a hypothesis you don’t really have anything. I can understand why someone would believe there is a highly intelligent being that created all this, but all you have established is deism. It still functions just like atheism.
I read the paper you posted as a link. It explores some paradoxes that we have within our current cosmological theories. We have always had paradoxes, otherwise we wouldn’t be still trying to establish a universal theory. To suggest that god did it from a scientific basis is just another complicated god of the gaps idea.
The God of the Gaps argument is silly and frankly, unfair. Its basically saying, those who have pushed to another perspective of believing in an entity such as God are just responsible of fallacious thinking using buzz phrases like ‘God of the Gaps’. I find that there is nothing remotely wrong with looking at the insane amount of paradoxes in the universe and speculating an intelligence behind them because at the end of the day, one can logical conclude that they imply that an intelligence behind them. I find this better than simply shrugging and just accepting that they are there for some reason, basically that the entire universe and indeed ourselves, is one big cosmic accident. I mean when you take the sheer complexities or us, and indeed the universe, that’s one fucking big accident! Such paradoxes are enough to persuade me that God exists, as well as what I know within history, if people don’t want to see the paradoxes as an implication of a creator then that’s fine, I can see where they are coming from. But stop throwing out this God of the Gaps nonsense because I could equally claim that materialists are coming from a Science of the Gaps ideology, believing that science will one day have an explanation to everything, that we will one day develop this unified theory of the universe. I don’t though because its stupid and silences any debate instantly.
And at the end of the day, no one truly knows why the paradoxes are there, all we can do is speculate from whatever perspective we follow, whether it be Atheist, Deist, Theist or whatever, because we don’t know why they are there then there is no one correct hypothesis. I accept this and I have my own individual belief that it strongly shows that an intelligence is behind them, I’m not going to enforce that anyone else though.
@Shift I find that there is nothing remotely wrong with looking at the insane amount of paradoxes in the universe and speculating an intelligence behind them because at the end of the day, one can logical conclude that they imply that an intelligence behind them. I find this better than simply shrugging and just accepting that they are there for some reason, basically that the entire universe and indeed ourselves, is one big cosmic accident. I mean when you take the sheer complexities or us, and indeed the universe, that’s one fucking big accident!
I don’t believe the Universe is an accident. I just don’t know if there is a consciousness behind it. It is entirely possible that it is self ordered and knows nothing of us.
Remember I’m an agnostic. That means I don’t claim to know. I’m also a skeptic since I have found myself having to change my mind many times as I come across new information. If a claim doesn’t have evidence or is internally consistent I don’t believe it. That’s my method of truth seeking.
I don’t believe there is a god because I don’t have enough evidence to make that claim meaningful. Atheism is a default, not a belief for me.
@Richard And I fully understand your position. I don’t think anyone can truly believe that the universe is an accident, simply because the consequences of that thought are ridiculous. So really, to an extent, I believe everyone really should be at least Agnostic, or at least open to the fact that there is a consciousness behind the universe. Simply claiming the there is none at all, is admitting that we are all one big accident, and that ultimately, the universe did come from nothing. Logically speaking, that’s basically impossible.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.