Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

None of what you posted lends any weight, to the notion that any other set of natural laws is actually possible. And some awestruck physicist, marveling over their intricate balance, does not make them divine.

You guys are hysterical. You use the word science to be synonymous with your beliefs about naturalism and atheism unless scientific facts don't suit your fancy in which case he's an awestruck physicist. I have no idea if a universe comes into existence it (for some non-design reason) has to be like the one we exist in. It doesn't make any difference it would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence by some naturalistic unguided process it 'has to' for some unknown reason have the same characteristics as the one we observe which just happen to allow for planets and life to exist.   

[Solomon Zorn]

No two things are alike? What about two electrons? Aren't they indistinguishable?

Couldn't say for sure. I personally haven't examined a representative sample, with adequately sensitive instruments, to rule out the possibility of minor variations, which might make each particle unique in some aspect. I said it was pedantic. In other words, it expounds upon irrelevant minutia, like you making this point, when the subject being discussed was the proper use of analogies.

[Solomon Zorn]

You guys are hysterical. You use the word science to be synonymous with your beliefs about naturalism and atheism unless scientific facts don't suit your fancy in which case he's an awestruck physicist.

Way to misrepresent what I said, to suit your own prejudices.

Firstly, I never used the word, "science," and if I did, it wouldn't be about anybody's "belief."

Secondly, I have no question of the of the scientific facts the man stated, only your implication that his fascination with them, in any way indicates they are divine in nature. His awe is meaningless to the equation.

I have no idea if a universe comes into existence it (for some non-design reason) has to be like the one we exist in. It doesn't make any difference it would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence by some naturalistic unguided process it 'has to' for some unknown reason have the same characteristics as the one we observe which just happen to allow for planets and life to exist.

Saying that any characteristic of the universe is "odd," is nothing more than a bald assertion. You have no other universes for comparison, to create a statistical model, of what is common, and what is odd.

[trdsf]

No two things are alike? What about two electrons? Aren't they indistinguishable?

Essentially.  Certainly they're indistinguishable enough that John Wheeler and Richard Feynman seriously (if briefly) entertained the idea that there was only one electron in the entire universe, weaving spatiotemporally in and out of every atom as needed.  Eventually both bailed out on the idea, but it wasn't immediately ruled out by the mathematics.  It did lead Feynman to a better understanding of the positron, though.

[Baruch]

"His awe is meaningless to the equation." ... tell that to Einstein.  To Joe (you remember him) Einstein was a god.  To Einstein, I, Spinoza, am his god ;-))  That is one reason why I chose this avatar.  All good physicists are Jewish, or should have been ;-)

[Baruch]

No two things are alike? What about two electrons? Aren't they indistinguishable?

Actually they aren't ... two electrons are distinguishable, if sufficiently far apart in time and space to exceed the space-time resolution of the instrument being used (so you can't get away with "pulling a Heisenberg").  This is why Wheeler-Feynman's idea doesn't work technically.  If you could get every electron together at the same time and place, even just two of them ... you would be violating Heisenberg and Pauli's exclusion principle.  Pauli's exclusion principle ... two electrons can be in the same place and same time, except that their spin is opposite ... and three or more is impossible.  And worse, electrons have chirality, in nature, there are both right handed and left handed electrons as well (most people don't know that) .... has to do with which orientation the magnetic moment goes, vs the spin orientation.  They either point the same way, or opposite.  Electrons don't have much structure, but it isn't zero either.  The percentage, in nature, of right handed and left handed electrons isn't 50/50.  Nobody knows why.  Just like it isn't clear why there isn't 50/50 matter/anti-matter.  There are some very clear experimental realities in particle physics, like the fine structure constant, that have no rational explanation.  Of course the hope is, with ever greater LHC power, something will pop up that will explain things a little more.  The Higgs didn't do that ... it isn't clear that the Higgs they found, is the only kind of Higgs, supersymmetry isn't found where it was expected, it isn't clear that it is a Higgs anyway (per the Higgs mechanism of QFT) as opposed to "just another damn particle" ... they have to study its properties more.  Don't believe self advertising or self congratulation of physicists.  They always want more grant money.

[Baruch]

how do you go from monkeys typing to bull shit? Shouldn't that be monkeys typing to monkey shit?

If you need a lesson in pontification just watch Trump for a couple hours.
Sounds like a butterfly on the opposite side of the earth changing the outcome of a thunderstorm on this side of the earth. I think it is correct, but you're gonna need a supercomputer to model the compound effects of all those small changes.

Unfortunately, even with supercomputers, weather prediction is only out to one day, max.  Rounding errors, and not enough data/calculating points in the grid.  Computation isn't magic, it is just a very fast adding machine.  That, and like most things in nature, weather is turbulent, chaotic.  It is fundamentally un-Newtonian.  There are no weather laws ... just weather chaos ... except for triviality like ... the air has some measurable pressure, temperature and humidity.

[Baruch]

The difference between an atheist making a claim and a theist making a claim is that at least the atheist has the benefit of the doubt considering there is no actual evidence of god's existence.

If a man approaches you and makes claims to something existing that is apparently supernatural where there is no evidence of its existence, it is more logical to consider that individual of being mentally ill than to follow his faith merely because he has faith.

If any actual evidence of god's existence was ever provided, any logical individual would believe (which is not to be confused with worship) in that god.  There is no question of that.  Yet faith is not evidence, and it never will be.

Agnostics have doubt, atheists do not.  And I agree, faith isn't evidence.  My right hand is, but I don't interpret that like you do.  Most faithful, not just infidels ... don't have a proper definition of faith anyway.  It is a profound thing ... trust between two individuals.  An atheist can't trust G-d by definition.  Neither can an agnostic.  I am an infidel ... not because there is no G-d, but because I don't trust G-d, as a person.  I have no reason to.

[Baruch]

You guys are hysterical. You use the word science to be synonymous with your beliefs about naturalism and atheism unless scientific facts don't suit your fancy in which case he's an awestruck physicist. I have no idea if a universe comes into existence it (for some non-design reason) has to be like the one we exist in. It doesn't make any difference it would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence by some naturalistic unguided process it 'has to' for some unknown reason have the same characteristics as the one we observe which just happen to allow for planets and life to exist.   

Don't worry, the fancies of unproven QFT un-science (colliding branes of the multiverse) is enough to explain any gaps in naturalism.  Just like ontological arguments are used to CYA a theologian's ass.  If we stick to empirical evidence, not Pythagorean mumbo-jumbo ... then we can see that while a system that presupposes that there is no G-d ... can't show there is or is not a G-d ... but that human understanding and knowledge are limited (for both theists and atheists).  We don't have epistemological problems, we have personality problems.  Psychology is the queen of sciences, not physics, not math.  Reductionism is only partly useful, sometimes, it isn't a panacea.  There are no panaceas.

[Drew_2017]

Firstly, I never used the word, "science," and if I did, it wouldn't be about anybody's "belief."

Not in this specific missive but in other responses you have invoked the name of science like a rubber stamp to validate your beliefs...

Secondly, I have no question of the of the scientific facts the man stated, only your implication that his fascination with them, in any way indicates they are divine in nature. His awe is meaningless to the equation.

Just so you know Sir Martin Rees is damn near the Newton and Einstein of our era hence he was knighted Sir. He's also an atheist and naturalist like yourself. I didn't cite his awe only the facts which is the source of my implication we owe our existence to planning an design. Its meaningless to you as any evidence of design and intent is because your position is un-falsifiable. If we could observe a universe with no planets, stars or life that was utter chaos you'd claim that was evidence of natural unguided causes also. Like many on this board you pretend to be open to facts and data of an intelligent designer when in fact any such facts are by your own admission meaningless.

Rees as a result the facts of how narrow the parameters are (not just for life but for a universe to produce stars and planets) that he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes. Unlike you he thinks the naturalist solution to this problem is multiple universes with variable laws of physics and we'd find ourselves in the one that supports our existence. Of course you don't notice this is a naturalism in the gaps argument since we have (at present) no way of knowing if other universes exist.   

Saying that any characteristic of the universe is "odd," is nothing more than a bald assertion. You have no other universes for comparison, to create a statistical model, of what is common, and what is odd.

At the moment we only know of one universe with mindbogglingly narrow parameters for stars planets galaxies and solar systems and obviously sentient life to develop. If you offer the notion (I won't say belief because frankly I don't think you actually believe it either) this universe for some unknown reason 'had to' come out as it did if true would favor theistic belief. Theists believe the universe was intentionally designed and when you intentionally cause something you attempt to make it come out a certain way. Like fine printed circuit boards come out identical because they are designed that way. Either event the notion the universe (for some unknown but not by design) reason had to come out like this one is just another naturalism in the gaps argument you raise but I suspect don't actually believe yourself and of course offer no evidence.

[fencerider]

The universe we live in is at least 4 dimensional. Time is a dimension. Don't forget that planets that slow down eventually do fall into their star.

Not only are electrons basically identical, they are interchangable. Without that we have no electricity, no electric computers and no internet forum for this conversation.


It seems like Drew has been trying to break the ice in this whole thread by trying to get people to admit that sentience is can be considered proof of god or that the universe appears to have intelligent design. I suppose Drew was planning to pile on other evidence after getting through with the first one. This one aint workin Drew. maybe you should try presenting another kind of evidence. You're not gonna break any ice by arguing intelligent design or sentience. Don't forget that if you can prove intelligent design you would only be providing evidence of a creator. ... neither the existence of a creator nor the existence of an evil being provides proof of the existence of a god

[Baruch]

Sorry ... Popular Science vs Popular Mechanics ... but that is what one would expect with any random assortment of individuals.

[Solomon Zorn]

Not in this specific missive but in other responses you have invoked the name of science like a rubber stamp to validate your beliefs...

Drew, you are a liar, and I'm just about done with you. Quote me an example, or fuck off.

Just so you know Sir Martin Rees is damn near the Newton and Einstein of our era hence he was knighted Sir.

I'm sure his mother is proud. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less.

He's also an atheist and naturalist like yourself.

So the"Newton and Einstein of our era" doesn't share your theistic conclusions, about the implications of the facts cited. He must just be seeing what he wants to see.

I didn't cite his awe only the facts which is the source of my implication we owe our existence to planning an design.

You have not shown, in any way, that the values cited Mr. Rees, imply intelligent design. You just keep asserting it, over and over, like repetition is going to make your leap-of-faith valid.

Its meaningless to you as any evidence of design and intent is because your position is un-falsifiable.

If you can't persuade them, they must be closed minded. It couldn't be that your argument has no merit.

If we could observe a universe with no planets, stars or life that was utter chaos you'd claim that was evidence of natural unguided causes also.

If we could observe pink pixies on my penis, you'd probably pacify them with peanut butter. Stick to the facts.

Like many on this board you pretend to be open to facts and data of an intelligent designer when in fact any such facts are by your own admission meaningless.

Like many on this board, you pretend to have facts and data of an intelligent designer, when all you have are bald assertions, and non-sequiturs.

Rees as a result the facts of how narrow the parameters are (not just for life but for a universe to produce stars and planets) that he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes.

Sounds more like something he postulated, rather than something he "concluded."

Unlike you he thinks the naturalist solution to this problem is multiple universes with variable laws of physics and we'd find ourselves in the one that supports our existence.

What "problem?" You see a "problem," any time things are too complexly ordered for you to understand.

Of course you don't notice this is a naturalism in the gaps argument...

The only problematic gap here, is the one where your brain should be.

At the moment we only know of one universe with mindbogglingly narrow parameters for stars planets galaxies and solar systems and obviously sentient life to develop. If you offer the notion (I won't say belief because frankly I don't think you actually believe it either) this universe for some unknown reason 'had to' come out as it did if true would favor theistic belief. Theists believe the universe was intentionally designed and when you intentionally cause something you attempt to make it come out a certain way. Like fine printed circuit boards come out identical because they are designed that way. Either event the notion the universe (for some unknown but not by design) reason had to come out like this one is just another naturalism in the gaps argument you raise but I suspect don't actually believe yourself and of course offer no evidence.

I AM DONE WITH YOU SIR! You have restated the same simple-minded assertion, over and over and over. I have wasted a lot of time, explaining to you why this assertion is unsupported, by the facts you offer as "evidence." And yet you're back again, insisting that your non-squitur leap-of-faith, is valid.

I used to work in a very large stable, but your posts contain far more horseshit, than I am willing to shovel. You are an imbecile. Our conversation is over.

[Cavebear]

Not in this specific missive but in other responses you have invoked the name of science like a rubber stamp to validate your beliefs...

Just so you know Sir Martin Rees is damn near the Newton and Einstein of our era hence he was knighted Sir.

Being knighted a "Sir" confers no specific acknowledgment of intelligence.  Just so you know.

[Unbeliever]

Being knighted a "Sir" confers no specific acknowledgment of intelligence.  Just so you know.

Yeah, after all, I doubt anyone thinks Sir Sean Connery is exactly a genius - though a pretty good actor.