Fine Tuning Of The Universe

[Era Might]

27 minutes ago, Socrates said:

It seems you either missed the point, or else deliberately evaded it by changing the subject.  The so-called "anthropic principle" or "fine-tuning" argument is that the physical laws and conditions governing the universe must be so precisely "tuned" that even the slightest change in any of them would mean a universe in which material beings could exist at all could not exist (for instance, the universe would collapse in on itself, or immediately dissipate into nothing, etc.).  The odds of these conditions all being "correct" by pure dumb luck are not just extremely improbable, but essentially statistically impossible.  For instance, the acclaimed mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of this happening to be one in [a number so huge that it would be impossible to ever write out in standard notation, and in scientific notation it has far more zeros than I have time to count out.]  In other words, the probability that the laws of the universe came about randomly is basically nil.

No, such a percentages could not "be applied to anything," and your comparison to the question of which religion is true frankly makes no sense at all. I don't claim such mathematical observations about the universe in themselves prove the truth of the Christian Faith, but they do create very serious problems for the atheistic notion that the creation of the universe was a purely random physical event, and does point towards an intelligent, immaterial Creator.  Whether you tend to believe in God or not, it's stupid and irrational to simply blow off such mathematical facts off-hand.  It seems to me that you disregard them simply because they are inconvenient to the atheistic ideology you have chosen to follow.

It appears you reject not only revealed faith, but reason as well ("scientific worldview" - can't trust that darned math!).  If you reject reason, then it's a waste of time to attempt to reason any further with you.  It seems that, in true postmodernist fashion, rejecting both faith and reason, you're left with simply an irrational self-absorbed nihilism that recognizes nothing higher than your own personal feelings and opinion.  I'm afraid only prayer and fasting is the only answer here.

Ad hominem.

No, I don't reject reason, but I do restrict it as a method of man, nothing more. The idea that God is "intelligent" is stupid to me. Intelligence is a faculty of man. You think that stupid scientific arguments for God are somehow reasonable or intelligent. I dont. Intelligence is our consciousness of ourselves. God is not one of us. He is not an intelligent designer, a cosmic Steve Jobs. You assume that Nihilism is the only alternative to modern creationism. It isnt. Plotinus speaks of God, the One, but he wasn't a creationist trying to make silly arguments from science.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Era Might

[xSilverPhinx]

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

Ad hominem.

Do you seriously think that there is any substance to his claims?  

I'm a bit too busy at the moment to go into every point now...maybe later. 

[Socrates]

21 hours ago, Era Might said:

No, I don't reject reason, but I do restrict it as a method of man, nothing more. The idea that God is "intelligent" is stupid to me. Intelligence is a faculty of man. You think that stupid scientific arguments for God are somehow reasonable or intelligent. I dont. Intelligence is our consciousness of ourselves. God is not one of us. He is not an intelligent designer, a cosmic Steve Jobs. You assume that Nihilism is the only alternative to modern creationism. It isnt. Plotinus speaks of God, the One, but he wasn't a creationist trying to make silly arguments from science.

You still haven't actually addressed the "fine-tuning" argument at all, beyond simply declaring it "stupid" and "silly" (and from your prior replies, I get the impression you haven't even listened to the argument to begin with, but simply rejected it off-hand as "creationist" nonsense - as if belief in a divine Creator is so self-evidently stupid that whatever a "theist" might say is to be automatically rejected as idiocy).  

I'm honestly not seeing what's so self-evidently moronic about the idea that the mathematical impossibility of all the physical constants that make our universe possible coming about by pure, dumb chance might point to an intelligent Creator, but obviously that's because I'm a dumb-butt and not an all-wise sage like yourself.  Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Human reason may not be able to completely grasp the ultimate reality of God, but it can come to the conclusion that it is supremely unlikely that certain things came about by pure chance, and that this would point to a designer.  For instance it would not be rational to assume a complex, functioning machine like a computer came about by storms randomly hitting piles of scrap metal, or that Shakespeare's works were the result of monkeys randomly striking a keyboard, or that a marksman could consistently precisely hit tiny, distant targets by simply randomly firing his weapon blindfolded.  (Not perfect analogies, but you get the idea.)

But since you evidently see such arguments as too stupid to be worth even addressing, perhaps it would be best to start by explaining how you do think the universe came to be.  Did it simply f@rt itself into being out of nothing, complete with all its fine-tuned physical laws?  Or do you subscribe to an infinite multiverse hypothesis, or something similar?

(Btw, my remarks about nihilism concerned the content of your own posts.)

Of course, God's intelligence is not the same as human intelligence, and no one is actually suggesting that He's literally the same as a human engineer (human intelligence is a weak reflection of divine intellect, rather than vise-versa).  But God is intelligent; He's not merely some blind mindless force.  But if you're an atheist, and presumably believe God to be nothing more than a purely fictional character, a mere figment of human imagination, it seems pretty pointless and silly for you to try to argue about the nature of God, and whether or not He's intelligent.  It would be like debating the true attributes of the Tooth Fairy, or arguing about whether the Incredible Hulk could beat up Superman.

 

[Socrates]

11 hours ago, xSilverPhinx said:

Do you seriously think that there is any substance to his claims?  

I'm a bit too busy at the moment to go into every point now...maybe later. 

To answer your question, yes, I do.  I finally watched the video, and while I know nothing about Dr. Craig, the video was simply summarizing in simple terms mathematical observations and arguments others (including a number of respected and renowned physicists and mathematicians) have made regarding the physical constants that govern our universe.  Not all of them come to the conclusion that God exists, but the "fine-tuning" of the universe is pretty well established mathematically - that is that outside an extremely narrow range of constants, the universe could not exist.  These include scientists such as Roger Penrose, Owen Gingerish, Fred Hoyle, Walter Bradley, Brandon Carter, and Paul Davies.  So far, I've found atheistic attempts to explain the fine-tuned universe (such as multiverse hypotheses) unconvincing.  

None of the people I've read on the fine-tuned universe argument were literal six-day young-earth creationists, so its dishonest to act as though the idea of the fine-tuned universe is the concoction of ignorant backwoods Bible-thumpers intent on proving that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.

Whenever you have time, you're welcome to show how the fine-tuning claims are wrong, but so far, I've seen nothing of substance.

[Era Might]

29 minutes ago, Socrates said:

You still haven't actually addressed the "fine-tuning" argument at all, beyond simply declaring it "stupid" and "silly" (and from your prior replies, I get the impression you haven't even listened to the argument to begin with, but simply rejected it off-hand as "creationist" nonsense - as if belief in a divine Creator is so self-evidently stupid that whatever a "theist" might say is to be automatically rejected as idiocy).  

I'm honestly not seeing what's so self-evidently moronic about the idea that the mathematical impossibility of all the physical constants that make our universe possible coming about by pure, dumb chance might point to an intelligent Creator, but obviously that's because I'm a dumb-butt and not an all-wise sage like yourself.  Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Human reason may not be able to completely grasp the ultimate reality of God, but it can come to the conclusion that it is supremely unlikely that certain things came about by pure chance, and that this would point to a designer.  For instance it would not be rational to assume a complex, functioning machine like a computer came about by storms randomly hitting piles of scrap metal, or that Shakespeare's works were the result of monkeys randomly striking a keyboard, or that a marksman could consistently precisely hit tiny, distant targets by simply randomly firing his weapon blindfolded.  (Not perfect analogies, but you get the idea.)

But since you evidently see such arguments as too stupid to be worth even addressing, perhaps it would be best to start by explaining how you do think the universe came to be.  Did it simply f@rt itself into being out of nothing, complete with all its fine-tuned physical laws?  Or do you subscribe to an infinite multiverse hypothesis, or something similar?

(Btw, my remarks about nihilism concerned the content of your own posts.)

Of course, God's intelligence is not the same as human intelligence, and no one is actually suggesting that He's literally the same as a human engineer (human intelligence is a weak reflection of divine intellect, rather than vise-versa).  But God is intelligent; He's not merely some blind mindless force.  But if you're an atheist, and presumably believe God to be nothing more than a purely fictional character, a mere figment of human imagination, it seems pretty pointless and silly for you to try to argue about the nature of God, and whether or not He's intelligent.  It would be like debating the true attributes of the Tooth Fairy, or arguing about whether the Incredible Hulk could beat up Superman.

 

Unlike you, I actually watched the video, and I watched the response video that Josh posted, which discusses at length why it's stupid.

It's not silly for a non-Believer to argue about God, because God is an idea, and to argue about an idea and the logic and language around it is a subject for the philosophers and the humanities, not just theologians.

I absolutely reject the idea that God is intelligent (I'm speaking here of the traditional Christian conception of God, not god in the abstract). Intelligence is the ability to know apart from something else, that is, to be conscious of being. Intelligence is man's consciousness, his ability to see himself both apart from and part of a whole. God is not a part of anything, he is utterly transcendent. God is not a scientist. Science is merely a language we use to represent reality...it is not reality.

Re: Shakespeare, I suggest you read Harold Bloom, the preeminent literary critic who explores Shakespeare's invention of the self. What we imagine as our self, he argues and demonstrates, is a creation of Shakespeare, who for the first time ever created characters who talk alone, within themselves as a self.

I can't argue with you about God. To put it charitably, your understanding of the Western intellectual tradition is so shallow and so ideological that you can't deal with ideas as anything except pawns in your kulturkampf. The difference between you and me is that I can admire Thomas Aquinas and Pseudo-Dionysius and the Gospels themselves, and take them seriously as having something to teach, even if I'm not a believer. But your thinking is so shallow and ideological that you can't even seriously entertain Marx or Nietzsche or Camus or (farther back) Plotinus. You need to do more reading, your education has failed you (and I say that honestly, not trying to be a jerk, because you're so ignorant about what you don't know, you can't have a serious intellectual discussion about anything).

Edited June 5, 2016 by Era Might

[Socrates]

25 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Unlike you, I actually watched the video, and I watched the response video that Josh posted, which discusses at length why it's stupid.

It's not silly for a non-Believer to argue about God, because God is an idea, and to argue about an idea and the logic and language around it is a subject for the philosophers and the humanities, not just theologians.

I absolutely reject the idea that God is intelligent (I'm speaking here of the traditional Christian conception of God, not god in the abstract). Intelligence is the ability to know apart from something else, that is, to be conscious of being. Intelligence is man's consciousness, his ability to see himself both apart from and part of a whole. God is not a part of anything, he is utterly transcendent. God is not a scientist. Science is merely a language we use to represent reality...it is not reality.

Re: Shakespeare, I suggest you read Harold Bloom, the preeminent literary critic who explores Shakespeare's invention of the self. What we imagine as our self, he argues and demonstrates, is a creation of Shakespeare, who for the first time ever created characters who talk alone, within themselves as a self.

I can't argue with you about God. To put it charitably, your understanding of the Western intellectual tradition is so shallow and so ideological that you can't deal with ideas as anything except pawns in your kulturkampf. The difference between you and me is that I can admire Thomas Aqui nas and Pseudo-Dionysius and the Gospels themselves, and take them seriously as having some thing to teach, even if I am not a believer. But your thinking is so shallow and ideological that you can't even seriously entertain Mar or Nietzsce or Camus or (farther back) Plotinus. You need to do more reading, your education has failed you (and I say that honestly, not trying to be a jerk, because you're so ignorant about what you don't know, you can't have a serious intellectual discussion about anything).

Well, bless your heart!

Okay, so to summarize your "argument":  "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm, like, really, really, really, super-smart, and you're just a big stoopid dum-dum head - as is every other moron dumb enough to actually believe in God in this day and age."

Okay, you got me there; can't argue with that.  You win, check-mate.

(And, btw, I did watch the video; see my last reply to xSilverPhinx.  And if you're really interested in the topic, rather than just calling people dumb, you really should read Fr. Robert Spitzer; he goes into these arguments and the science behind them in a lot more depth than these youtube videos.  Though I'm sure he's also just a drooling retard.)

While that's an interesting theory about Shakespeare, I don't see how it addresses my point about how foolish it is to assume the laws that govern our universe came about by mere random chance and dumb luck.  But that's okay, because I'm now enlightened, and realize that there's actually no such person as "Era Might"; his posts are obviously nothing but the result of an angry monkey randomly striking keys on a computer.  That actually explains a lot; it's all clear to me now.

God (if He in fact exists) bless, and remember to drink responsibly.

[Era Might]

2 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Well, bless your heart!

Okay, so to summarize your "argument":  "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm, like, really, really, really, super-smart, and you're just a big stoopid dum-dum head - as is every other moron dumb enough to actually believe in God in this day and age."

Okay, you got me there; can't argue with that.  You win, check-mate.

(And, btw, I did watch the video; see my last reply to xSilverPhinx.  And if you're really interested in the topic, rather than just calling people dumb, you really should read Fr. Robert Spitzer; he goes into these arguments and the science behind them in a lot more depth than these youtube videos.  Though I'm sure he's also just a drooling retard.)

While that's an interesting theory about Shakespeare, I don't see how it addresses my point about how foolish it is to assume the laws that govern our universe came about by mere random chance and dumb luck.  But that's okay, because I'm now enlightened, and realize that there's actually no such person as "Era Might"; his posts are obviously nothing but the result of an angry monkey randomly striking keys on a computer.  That actually explains a lot; it's all clear to me now.

God (if He in fact exists) bless, and remember to drink responsibly.

I didn't say you were dumb, just ignorant of your ignorance. And I didn't say that I'm right because I didn't put forth an argument for something, I just said this particular argument is stupid. There are a lot of intelligent believers who I respect and whose intelligence far surpasses mine...but they wouldn't be stupid enough to buy into this stupid American apologetic of creationism and God the Scientist.

[Guest]

Just now, Socrates said:

To answer your question, yes, I do.  I finally watched the video, and while I know nothing about Dr. Craig, the video was simply summarizing in simple terms mathematical observations and arguments others (including a number of respected and renowned physicists and mathematicians) have made regarding the physical constants that govern our universe.  Not all of them come to the conclusion that God exists, but the "fine-tuning" of the universe is pretty well established mathematically - that is that outside an extremely narrow range of constants, the universe could not exist.  These include scientists such as Roger Penrose, Owen Gingerish, Fred Hoyle, Walter Bradley, Brandon Carter, and Paul Davies.  So far, I've found atheistic attempts to explain the fine-tuned universe (such as multiverse hypotheses) unconvincing.  

None of the people I've read on the fine-tuned universe argument were literal six-day young-earth creationists, so its dishonest to act as though the idea of the fine-tuned universe is the concoction of ignorant backwoods Bible-thumpers intent on proving that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.

Whenever you have time, you're welcome to show how the fine-tuning claims are wrong, but so far, I've seen nothing of substance.

Well said. No one is arguing for a young earth or no evolution. It's just a consensus now from believers and atheist alike that if this is the only universe then their is intelligence behind it and it's laws. I was just at an atheist physics facebook page and this topic was being discussed. They choose to believe there are an almost infinite amount of universes and that explains away the impossible odds of life being able to evolve in this one and the laws and constants being set the way they are.  

Edited June 5, 2016 by Guest

[Era Might]

15 minutes ago, Socrates said:

God (if He in fact exists) bless, and remember to drink responsibly.

Btw, I can't promise to drink responsibly, but thanks for the blessing. If you're ever around my way you got a beer and a shot upon your arrival, on me, as long as you don't bore me with politics.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Era Might

[Credo in Deum]

You're flying over an island and you see SOS spelled in the sand with rocks.

What is your first thought?

A.) The arrangement happened by chance.

B.) A being with intelligence arranged them. 

Order is a characteristic of intelligence and the order in the universe is the best evidence for intelligent designe.

But for argument sake let's say you did pick B but we're wrong. Even in that event you would still be more reasonable than the person who picked A from the get go. 

 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Era Might]

7 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

You're flying over an island and you see SOS spelled in the sand with rocks.

What is your first thought?

A.) The arrangement happened by chance.

B.) A being with intelligence arranged them. 

Order is a characteristic of intelligence and the order in the universe is the best evidence for intelligent designe.

But for argument sake let's say you did pick B but we're wrong. Even in that event you would still be more reasonable than the person who picked A from the get go. 

Order is not a characteristic of intelligence. Spiders are very orderly, that doesn't make them intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to stand apart from order, to see that it is order. If God is intelligent, then he is not God, because to be intelligent implies the ability to understand, comprehend, discern...all of which imply ignorance...intelligence is the work of consciousness. The designer is an imitator, God is a creator out of nothing. The universe is no more designed than language is...language is like an orgasm, a mysterious explosion of possibility. Actually, I think an orgasm is an appropriate metaphor for God...it's certainly preferable to the mechanical conception of an "intelligent designer." The universe is an explosion of God's seed, not a gadget he has designed.

[Guest]

Just now, Era Might said:

The universe is an explosion of God's seed, not a gadget he has designed.

The thing is he either influenced the explosion to do certain things so the universe was able to expand, stars form and life evolve. Or there is near an infinite amount of explosions and this was the one universe where conditions were just right. The second video I posted that's what the guy ultimately goes with. That there is a multiverse. I just find it fascinating that believers and agnostics/atheist alike can agree it's one or the other. And a multiverse wouldn't do away with God but it would make atheist that more sure God doesn't exist.

[Era Might]

Also, the length of cosmic development also points to a world that is not intelligently designed in the creationist sense. Over billions of years the universe has achieved man, this unique creature of consciousness who expresses that consciousness through symbols (particularly language). But try to fathom what billions of years means...billions! To me that points to a universe working out its own potentiality, not a scientist in the sky tweaking numbers.

5 minutes ago, Josh said:

The thing is he either influenced the explosion to do certain things so the universe was able to expand, stars form and life evolve. Or there is near an infinite amount of explosions and this was the one universe where conditions were just right. The second video I posted that's what the guy ultimately goes with. That there is a multiverse. I just find it fascinating that believers and agnostics/atheist alike can agree it's one or the other. And a multiverse wouldn't do away with God but it would make atheist that more sure God doesn't exist.

But is that what Christianity wants to reduce God to, an "influencer"? To me that's a pathetic idea of God. I'd rather be a literal creationist than an intelligent designer. At least their God gets right to work and lets man ride dinosaurs. He isn't a God influencing in the background, like the wizard of oz.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Era Might

[Guest]

Yeah I agree but the numbers had to be so extremely fine tuned for the universe to even expand or stars form. For evolution to even be possible. The multiverse is the only explanation unless science and numbers don't mean anything and there all just a construct of the human mind. From what I read and listen to that seems not to be the case. Numbers and math are real and legit. I see where you're coming from and I agree that we can't know God by viewing him as some scientist. But for a long time I always saw atheist throw science in believers face to prove God doesn't exist. And a lot of times they were probably justified because a lot of Christians are scientifically ignorant. But as far as the fine tuning or there being a multiverse it seems it's one or the other. A third possibility being the laws and constants just had to be this way. It's the only way they could be. But from what I read and hear from both sides this isn't the case. The laws and constants could of been anything.

I think the laws and constants of the universe and the mystery of consciousness is a reason for everyone to be agnostic at the very least.

[Credo in Deum]

34 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Order is not a characteristic of intelligence. Spiders are very orderly, that doesn't make them intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to stand apart from order, to see that it is order. If God is intelligent, then he is not God, because to be intelligent implies the ability to understand, comprehend, discern...all of which imply ignorance...intelligence is the work of consciousness. The designer is an imitator, God is a creator out of nothing. The universe is no more designed than language is...language is like an orgasm, a mysterious explosion of possibility. Actually, I think an orgasm is an appropriate metaphor for God...it's certainly preferable to the mechanical conception of an "intelligent designer." The universe is an explosion of God's seed, not a gadget he has designed.

What a load dribble. The web is a sign that there is intellegence. It's order suggest a creator. If you walked by a web you would observe that a being made it and that it did not make itself. Spiders, while not very intelligent, display some intelligence through their hunting. Maybe you've heard of Portia the jumping spider? 

15 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Also, the length of cosmic development also points to a world that is not intelligently designed in the creationist sense. Over billions of years the universe has achieved man, this unique creature of consciousness who expresses that consciousness through symbols (particularly language). But try to fathom what billions of years means...billions! To me that points to a universe working out its own potentiality, not a scientist in the sky tweaking numbers.

Pfft. I don't view God as some divine plumber who fixes poo as it goes along. He is constantly in control of what is taking place. He didn't just created and sit back to watch it unfold. Nothing, no matter how small, is done without Him. You should read Fulton Sheen's book "Old Errors and New Labels".  He addresses many errors commonly held by you and by many today..  

Edited June 5, 2016 by Credo in Deum