Present Evidence Here II

[Baruch]

Yet you called me one elsewhere.

Are you the only one who reads my posts?  Might not have meant a particular reader but a class of readers, of which you are unlikely to be ... given you are even older than me ;-)

[Drew_2017]

The universe is not fine tuned for life. Rather life is fine tuned for the universe. Albeit infinitesimally so given that over 99 per cent of it is
actually incompatible with human existence. And further more were one of the four fundamental forces [ weak nuclear ] removed entirely
it would not adversely affect life on Earth. In fact it would allow for greater diversity of life to exist not less. The ratios of the constants are
what makes it possible for life to exist. Now this is a random process. However random here does not mean chance but instead a statistical
probability based upon all possible outcomes. That is to say something which can be predicted in advance so is not something unanticipated

First things first, it's not really known how life started or what conditions led to life. The only life we know of adapted to the conditions on earth we have yet to observe other life adapting to the conditions of their planets. If we did that would be powerful evidence life can adapt to a variety of conditions. The only life we do know of requires a host of conditions.

1. A Universe
2. Stars
4. Planets
5. Stars that go super nova and create the stuff planets are made of. This is not trivial a host of exacting conditions cause stars to go super nova and a host of laws of physics allow new more complex matter to be created when a super nova occurs which is essential to life.   
6. Gravity at a certain strength so that stars occur, super nova's occur and subsequently planets occur.
7. Black matter and black energy are critical to the existence of life. Without the existence of black matter galaxies would fly apart.
8. The ratio of matter to anti matter at the beginning of the universe. Had it been the same all matter would have been annihilated.

It turns out our solar system itself is very atypical, most solar systems have giant gas planets that wind up flinging the inner rocky planets out of their orbit. If by your own admission 99% of the universe is inhabitable how can you claim life adapts to prevailing conditions? Evidently it doesn't.

[Drew_2017]

Welcome Drew.

I take issue with two of your listed items:

"5.    The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies."

You imply that if these "several characteristics" had different values, then life as we know it, as well as the existence of planets, starts, etc.  would not be possible.  This is speculation, your assumption and not fact.  I do not know (and neither do you) whether such characteristics can have different values, or if they did whether intelligent life of some form could not emerge from that.  The "fine tuning" thought experiment does not demonstrate what you imply.

For those characteristics that can vary in value (e.g., distance of Earth from Sol), the fine tuning argument must take probability properly into account.  Virtually all theists who promote the fine tuning argument as "evidence" of their particular god(s) fail to do so.



"6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism."

The "fact" that you or I can imagine something does not make that something real.

As to points 1 through 4, I fail to see how those observations necessarily requires a GODDIDIT conclusion.

Hi Fungus thanks for responding...

It doesn't matter if the constants, laws of physics could be variable or not. It would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in a manner that allows life and sentience to obtain. You don't believe life had to happen right? What could possibly explain that if naturalistic forces somehow cause a universe to exist the only kind of universe that can come into existence has to have the laws and constants that allow not only life, but sentient life to exist? Actually from a naturalistic stand point you're better off claiming the conditions of a universe are random and this is one of an infinitude of possibilities that resulted in sentient life existing. That would be more simpatico with the belief our existence wasn't intended. Why do a thousand complicated circuit boards come out exactly identical? Because the engineers designed it that way. Why would a universe have to be in a certain configuration...because it was designed that way?

They don't require a Godidit explanation...they cast doubt on a Naturedidit explanation. In my opinion, the nature did it explanation is far more miraculous than a Goddidit explanation. This is what a naturedidit explanation requires.

First it requires naturalistic explanations 'all the way down' or that the naturalistic forces and matter we observe came into existence un-caused out of nothing, a magic act at best. If its natural causes infinitely all the way down we would never reach this time because we'd have to cross an infinitude of events to arrive at this time. Or you can believe that natural forces existed outside of time and later caused time to exist but that wouldn't be any type of naturalism we are familiar with.

Lets skip all that and assume that somehow naturalistic unguided forces caused the natural universe to exist. If so such forces without plan, intent, desire or a degree in physics caused something completely unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Life and mind came from mindless lifeless forces by happenstance.

[Baruch]

Still thinking in terms of cause/effect?  Non-temporal logic solves that.

Explanations are ape problems .. nature itself, doesn't require consciousness, let along explanations.  Nature is like the bandits at the end of The Treasure of Sierra Madre ... "We don't need no steenkin' explanations!"

[Drew_2017]

Still thinking in terms of cause/effect?  Non-temporal logic solves that.

Explanations are ape problems .. nature itself, doesn't require consciousness, let along explanations.  Nature is like the bandits at the end of The Treasure of Sierra Madre ... "We don't need no steenkin' explanations!"

I'll assume your responding to me...I allow natural forces need no explanation and always existed. That just imbues nature with divine properties...

[Mike Cl]

I'll assume your responding to me...I allow natural forces need no explanation and always existed. That just imbues nature with divine properties...

All natural forces have always existed?  Really?

[Hydra009]

All natural forces have always existed?  Really?

Yeah.  I coulda sworn there was a Grand Unification Epoch, then Electroweak Epoch, etc.

[Baruch]

I'll assume your responding to me...I allow natural forces need no explanation and always existed. That just imbues nature with divine properties...

Correct, before Galileo et al, we had Aristotelian teleology.  Science was based on biology, which is living, conscious and purposeful.  The purpose of the acorn is to make more acorns, using oak trees as the means ... not just the purpose of the oak tree is to make more oak trees using the acorns as the means.  Then we moved the paradigm to physics and astronomy ... not living, not conscious, without purpose.  So I would still threaten Galileo with the Inquisition, for that!  Nature wasn't formerly considered to be lifeless, now it is.  The real basis of human culture is psychology, not even biology.

[Baruch]

Yeah.  I coulda sworn there was a Grand Unification Epoch, then Electroweak Epoch, etc.

Undemonstrated by direct evidence.  We know nothing before the first 300 million years after the Big Bang.  It is assumed by particle physicists, that their experiments (and by reductionism) show what happens to very early times, before the first one second.  I find this claim to be ... marginal.  We kind of know what a tiny plasma ball or quark plasma behaves like .. but is that what a really big ball does?

[Hydra009]

In my opinion, the nature did it explanation is far more miraculous than a Goddidit explanation.

Yeah, well, lots of people have lots of opinions.  Sometimes very strong opinions.  It doesn't really have much of a bearing on what's real and what's not.

First it requires naturalistic explanations 'all the way down' or that the naturalistic forces and matter we observe came into existence un-caused out of nothing, a magic act at best.

That's weird, I could've sworn the theistic explanation was more magical.  So on one hand we have naturalistic forces that we don't fully understand eventually giving rise to everything we know.  On the other hand, we have an uncaused anthromorphic God figure (who is also eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent) literally speaking the universe into existence from nothing.  Hmmm...I wonder which explanation sounds more plausible?  *puts hands to his sides, mimicking balancing scales*

If its natural causes infinitely all the way down we would never reach this time because we'd have to cross an infinitude of events to arrive at this time.

I've heard that argument before.  I can't quite pin it down, but I believe it was a Way of the Master video.  Great stuff.  Very convincing.

Now, infinity is a strange term and difficult concept to understand, but it seems reasonable to trust one's intuition and decree that infinite time cannot exist.  Normally, the only other explanation would be God, but I'm going to try a strange new thing here:  a third option.  What if the universe isn't eternal?  What if the universe had a beginning?

Lets skip all that and assume that somehow naturalistic unguided forces caused the natural universe to exist. If so such forces without plan, intent, desire or a degree in physics caused something completely unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Life and mind came from mindless lifeless forces by happenstance.

That would seem pretty miraculous to someone completely unaware of the concept of emergence.  Relatively simple interactions can cause some pretty neat stuff:



Moral of the story:  just because it looks like it a giant built it, doesn't mean a giant actually did build it.  Just because it seems miraculous doesn't mean it was actually a miracle.

[Blackleaf]

First things first, it's not really known how life started or what conditions led to life. The only life we know of adapted to the conditions on earth we have yet to observe other life adapting to the conditions of their planets. If we did that would be powerful evidence life can adapt to a variety of conditions. The only life we do know of requires a host of conditions.

1. A Universe
2. Stars
4. Planets
5. Stars that go super nova and create the stuff planets are made of. This is not trivial a host of exacting conditions cause stars to go super nova and a host of laws of physics allow new more complex matter to be created when a super nova occurs which is essential to life.   
6. Gravity at a certain strength so that stars occur, super nova's occur and subsequently planets occur.
7. Black matter and black energy are critical to the existence of life. Without the existence of black matter galaxies would fly apart.
8. The ratio of matter to anti matter at the beginning of the universe. Had it been the same all matter would have been annihilated.

It turns out our solar system itself is very atypical, most solar systems have giant gas planets that wind up flinging the inner rocky planets out of their orbit. If by your own admission 99% of the universe is inhabitable how can you claim life adapts to prevailing conditions? Evidently it doesn't.

You think that our universe of 100,000,000,000+ galaxies only has one solar system like ours? You do not know that 99% of the universe is inhospitable, but even if it was, 1% of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is still 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.

[Cavebear]

Are you the only one who reads my posts?  Might not have meant a particular reader but a class of readers, of which you are unlikely to be ... given you are even older than me ;-)

I might be. Others tell me to ignore your posts as meaningless. Sometimes I agree.  But sometimes you offer interestingly odd references.

Personally, I suspect there may be more to you than meets the eye.  Fewer posts and more thought to them might serve you better.

[Solomon Zorn]

Okay, once again, I am just an uneducated hick. But I don't get it. Why do you guys insist on giving in, to this "alternate laws of physics" crap? Surely the mathematics are unchangeable. What is, results from what was, and all of the cause and effect relationships, all of their proportions and ratios, and uniform interactions, are the simple extension, of something basic, or the equivalent of 1+1=2. It just works that way. There are equations which work, and any which won't, never take shape. They can't exist.

We don't yet have all of the math to describe the earliest interactions perfectly, but that doesn't support the contention that God spoke it into existence. Such a premise requires a whole magnitude of greater complexity, ending in some very similar unresolved questions.

[Cavebear]

Okay, once again, I am just an uneducated hick. But I don't get it. Why do you guys insist on giving in, to this "alternate laws of physics" crap? Surely the mathematics are unchangeable. What is, results from what was, and all of the cause and effect relationships, all of their proportions and ratios, and uniform interactions, are the simple extension, of something basic, or the equivalent of 1+1=2. It just works that way. There are equations which work, and any which won't, never take shape. They can't exist.

We don't yet have all of the math to describe the earliest interactions perfectly, but that doesn't support the contention that God spoke it into existence. Such a premise requires a whole magnitude of greater complexity, ending in some very similar unresolved questions.

For whatever it is worth (not being a physicist), I trust maths, trust results from careful experiments, and trust accuracy and facts.

But I do wonder at the idea that only results arrived at with current maths are all that is true.  That would leave us at Newtonian equations, for example.  Who knows what equations will be developed in the future?

I suspect that our current thoughts of spacetime are going to seem archaic in the next century.  There should be sensible logic to the universe, and spacetime just seems to make illogical paradoxes. Paradoxes seem like a proof of error. 

[Baruch]

A change of pace ... regarding demigods ... are all demigods sociopaths?
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-10-16

And what does that tell us about G-d? ;-)