Theistic Physics and it's nonsensical suggestions

Sea of red

Theistic Physics and it's nonsensical suggestions.

I wrote this short little bit after a certain theist claimed I have no arguments against theism. Tonight I will give them. I wanted to write this anyways but now I fell inclined to. I wanted Joe to write on the kalam argument instead, but I'm going to give a shot tonight myself. My theist friend is more than welcome to come into this thread and refute me. But I suspect she's just another idiot that wishes to run her fucking mouth. If she wishes to just pussy out and not show her face then so be it. I will only respond to her here and on my grounds, as I've played on hers long enough. So if she's reading this I'd like her to know that she shouldn't respond at all if it's not going to be here.

Honestly though I want this to be more of a guide for people who don't know how to answer these arguments and are stumped.

All that said. Enjoy my argument against theistic physics and astronomy. If you wish to refute me feel free to do so.

Kalam Cosmology.

The Kalam cosmological argument goes as follows.

1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2)The universe began to exist.
3The universe has a cause.

Let me now give some objections to this argument. First it suggests that the universe had an absolute beginning and no previous history before t=0. Not true. It is not suggested in cosmology that the universe had an absolute beginning. Instead it predicts a “moment of creation” in which the universe expands in mere micro seconds. This is not the same as an absolute beginning. In fact many models exist in which the universe goes through cycles, the cyclic universe. This model is promoted by Steinhardt and Turok. This model is no way in contradiction with the heat death of the universe as well, I point this out so theists will not assume I am suggesting an oscillating universe. This model is one of the only models to answer the horizon problem and the flatness problem. Thus this model is to be taken seriously. Brane cosmology is not something that answers the Kalam argument with certainty, however it is something theists must show to be false, otherwise they must take a provisional(if you will). I do give this objection as to say that a cyclic universe is in fact the current model, but to demonstrate that this argument doesn't take current, new and exciting ideas in cosmology into account.

William Craig and others insist that this cause(if you swallow the rest of the argument)must have all of the attributes of the Christian god. This conclusion is only their opinion, they never give a reason why the cause must be a personal, timeless, unchanging, abstract, conscious, reality. Why can't it be perhaps a colliding branes like Steinhardt suggests? Or perhaps a quantum fluctuation? Dismissing premise 1, we can agree with premise 2, and 3 the conclusion and agree with theists that the universe indeed has a cause, just not the one they promote! Again this cause would also not necessarily have to be one that causes the universe to have an absolute beginning. Which brings me to my next point. Even if the universe had n absolute beginning it need not mean that it has a creator. In Andrei Linde's version of chaotic inflation the universe began as a quantum fluctuation as well as many other universes.

The Kalam argument fails scientifically. It is an argument that is not up to date(and doesn't wish to be) . Theists conclusions are fantasy and not necessary even when swallowing the argument it's self. Theists must counter why all other models fail scientifically and not philosophically by arguing the universe must have beginning regardless of what science says, resorting to the old cosmological argument thereafter.

Fine-tuned non sense

Of course now I turn to the fine tuning argument for god. The argument claims that the physical constants only harbor one type of life, and that these constants are too finely tuned to have happened by chance, thus a god must have set them as such.

First and for most, it may be true that many constants have such values because fundamentally it is “built into the system”. A theory of everything could possibly explain natures laws in this way. Thus even the cosmological constant =10 -120 it could be that it =0, or fall into a much narrower range than what you see now.

Another problem I have with this argument is that it assumes that one kind of life is possible because we only one to go by. This is non sense and may not by true even in our own galaxy. When constants are changed it is possible that other elements besides the ones in our every day lives could make life in some other universe(or our past universe!). The theists must prove such is not the case as it is them making the claim that no other kind of life is possible.

Something that theists dismiss is the idea of a multiverse. This idea to them is an atheist idea to get around the fine tuning, not so, multiverse is a hot topic and many cosmologists believe in it. Some hate the idea I admit, but most take it seriously. A multiverse is predicted by the current chaotic inflationary model. Andrei Linde has a model in which a multiverse full of a sea of universe's pooping into being from a quantum background(if you will), each having perhaps different physical constants, with us being in the one suited for us.

The fine tuning argument is without evidence and most of all plays on what we don't know. Apologists ignore ideas in science that don't shine a light on their pet idea. It's a dud.

Bottom line
At the end of the day naturalistic explanations based on scientific reasoning are superior to supernatural ones. They give answers, or at least try to work these problems out, using evidence, skepticism, and peer criticism. Unlike it's theistic counter part which wishes to just give us a dunce cap answer without evidence, after twisting facts of course.Naturalism and science are superior in every way to it's supernatural theistic counter part. That is my bottom line.

James.

The Endless Universe: Introduction to the Cyclic Universe ...

Steven Weinberg"Living in the Multiverse"

josephpalazzo · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:56 am Post subject:

Good job, Sea.

A few of my observations:

I was never taken in by the anthropic argument. It is too much of a stretch to make the following claim: the universe exists, we exist, therefore the constants were fine-tuned for that to happen. The multiverse, as I told you once, is not one of my favourite theory, however, it is certainly a counterpoint for you to use against the anthropic argument.

Also, the multiverse is a very good argument against the claim that God exists outside our reality. In either case, God-outside-reality and other-universes both are unknowable to us, and therefore are moot points.

josephpalazzo · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:36 am Post subject:

Just got this from Amazon.com:

The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design
by Leonard Susskind

Here's the Publishers Weekly Starred Review.

Philosophos · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:00 am Post subject:

Thanks for the reference, joe. I'll check that out later today.

As for the OP, I like your attempt. I'm curious (and still am) about how (and if) the fundamental constants are linked in physics. Just like the speed of light can't be varied without affecting the permittivity of a vacuum, can the fundamental constants known to modern physics really be varied independently? What does current theory say about this?

I still don't know much about this, although I have a few unread books on my shelf that may answer such questions. So, James, perhaps I'm infusing my own wants into reading your essay, but since you're in physics, I'd love to see more technical detail in the essay. It's also a great rhetorical technique. By "snowing" your opposition with technical detail that they have little chance of being able to rebut due to lack of knowledge, you can make your opponent look like a fool without actually stooping to the level of calling her a fool, which may make you come off looking bad to your audience. Remember: in debate, it's all about the audience.
_________________

josephpalazzo · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:09 am Post subject:

Sea of red · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject:

Tryto · Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:57 pm Post subject:

josephpalazzo · Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:40 am Post subject:

Philosophos · Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject:

I purchased and started reading the book joe referenced yesterday, and it's very hard to put down so far. I'm about 1/3 of the way done, and it seems like it's right on track to answer many of my questions concerning this stuff.
_________________

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Physics & Cosmology	All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1