http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087778/Churchs-anti-atheist-billboard-banned-advertising-watchdog.html
Excuse me, but that is what materialist atheists ultimately do believe, that the universe was formed in a completely undirected, purposeless beginning. While some may argue that natural selection is a 'guided process,' this does not account for the beginning of life and the extremely fine-tuned universe.
The complaint filed by the atheist is based on the atheist's being personally offended by what is essentially a true statement, that atheism is ultimately based on the idea of a chance beginning of the universe and life. The universe was designed or it was not. It was intentional or it was accidental. According to Webster's dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary, an accident is an unplanned event:
"a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
"2. something that happens unexpectedly and is not planned in advance. Their early arrival was just an accident."
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accident
There are three possible explanations for our fine-tuned universe:
1. The fine tuned universe happened by necessity.
2. It happened by chance.
3. It happened by design.
1. No one seriously believes the universe had to form together in a life sustaining fashion - meaning that it was impossible for it to form in a non-life sustaining fashion. No serious philosophers defend this position today.
2. Atheists generally propose that it was formed by chance. But is this logical?
Roger Penrose has pointed out that the odds of our universe's initial low entropy condition's existing by chance alone is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (123) power and the odds of our solar system existing by chance is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (60) power.
Some atheists argue that the universe could have formed together in a variety of different combinations with the same elementary particles. But William Lane Crag has explained why this argument is invalid. The elementary particles that comprise our universe aren't composed of matter. That is what quantum physics shows us. When you break matter down you find that energy, not matter, is the smallest common denominator. Therefore, these 'particles' could not have just been rearranged in a different manner. If you want to propose that different kinds of particles could have existed, then a different kind of universe would have emerged. (On Guard - p.61)
So, in review, why was the atheist so offended by the word "accident" in the billboard? According to atheism there is no God and so the universe could not have been planned. And, as we've seen, the evidence shows a chance occurring universe simply isn't the most logical conclusion. So, is this a hateful message in the billboard? No, it's actually one of compassion. When a person is in a state of denial, according to programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, the most compassionate act is to patiently confront the person in denial with the truth. But, of course in our politically correct world, this billboard is labelled as the opposite of what it is, it's labelled as "hate speech.."
From a legal perspective, if a legal ruling is based on an illogical claim, then the legal decision itself is illogical. It's a fine day when reality takes a second seat to what a person 'considers' to be true in a legal decision. The atheist does not "consider" his existence to be an accident, but we had better not offend him by allowing a billboard to outline the truth of the matter. It's apparent to the complaining atheist that an accidental origin is somehow not a good or logical basis for the universe and human existence. But instead of considering changing his beliefs, it is the implications of reality that apparently must be censored out of sight and out of mind.
This legal case highlights the fact that the person who did the complaining and the legal authorities who executed the illogical judgment really do need to sit down in front of the billboard and contemplate it until they understand what atheism is and what it implies.
Psalm 14.1 sums it up: ...The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Tags: Atheist censorship of Christianity, Atheism is illogical, Banned Christian billboard, Top billboards, Top billboard art, logical fallacies on billboards,
Why is the guy s upper cranium missing? Did they use titanium plates to plug the wound and paint it to his hair color? What does it have to do with atheism?
ReplyDeleteP.S. An atheist does not believe himself to be an accident. There is nothing accidental in the laws of probability. An atheist is just an inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws. The same way as your ignorance, Rick.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>>What does it have to do with atheism? (the empty head)
- The message is that it is not logical or wise to believe our existence is accidental.
>>P.S. An atheist does not believe himself to be an accident.
- I would offer that many atheists do realize that materialism implies life is a meaningless chance occurrence for atheists. Nihilism, Existentialism and Absurdism are based on this implication, among others.
>>There is nothing accidental in the laws of probability.
The laws of probability do not determine events and cause them to happen, they describe the outcome of combined variables:
Probability Topics: Two Basic Rules of Probability
http://cnx.org/content/m16847/latest/
The fact is, the variables that existed at the beginning of the universe were not planned by anyone and have no meaningful explanations, according to atheists, that would define these initial variables as anything but chance occurrences:
Chance - primary definition: a. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
If existence began without an "assignable cause" is it possible an assignable cause for existence simply emerged 'after the fact' and developed over time? No, because every known cause can be theoretically traced to a prior cause, except for the the existence of God who by definition does not need a cause because God is eternally existent. This is outlined in the Kalam cosmological argument.
R:>>What does it have to do with atheism? (the empty head)
ReplyDelete- The message is that it is not logical or wise to believe our existence is accidental.
So a straw-man argument and an implication that atheists have an empty head, are not wise or logical is not considered offensive by you? Interesting.
R:The laws of probability do not determine events and cause them to happen, they describe the outcome of combined variables
According to the laws of probability, our world was predestined to appear. Take into account the possibility of near infinite combinations of particles in the past. It is quite laughable to call it a mere "accident".
R:...according to atheists, that would define these initial variables as anything but chance occurrences...
You know, there is a difference between the words "chance" and "accident".
R:If existence began without an "assignable cause" is it possible an assignable cause for existence simply emerged 'after the fact' and developed over time?
The answer from reality would be - yes. People can assign their own cause for existence and they have been doing so for centuries. The process is called "rationalization". The prior cause can also be traced back in most cases. Though, they are different for each culture or individual, depending on the values and needs.
>>So a straw-man argument and an implication that atheists have an empty head, are not wise or logical is not considered offensive by you? Interesting.
ReplyDelete- I'm not sure what you mean by "a straw man argument" - There is no argument, just a definition.
According to Webster's dictionary, an accident is "a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance."
The universe had a beginning. It was designed or it was not. It was intentional or it was accidental. If you as an atheist believe the universe was planned, please describe how that would even be possible without God's existence?
If you are offended by the implications of what you believe, then you have the choice to change your beliefs. But to be offended by the simple definition and implications of your beliefs seems a bit odd.
R:According to Webster's dictionary, an accident is "a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance."
ReplyDeleteI do not like Webster s dictionary, I prefer the Oxford dictionary. Most dictionaries present an "accident" with a clear negative connotation. Their primary definition would be an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.
If Thompson used the word "by chance" instead of "accident" and if the billboard did not picture a mutilated person then no one would have been offended.
R:The universe had a beginning. It was designed or it was not. It was intentional or it was accidental.
Nothing happens by pure chance alone. If we just do not know the exact circumstances it does not mean that they did not exist.
A rainbow is not formed "accidently" in the sky. Some precise conditions are needed for a rainbow to form and sooner or later they indeed occur. No miracle is needed.
Same thing with rare atmospheric phenomena, like rain in a desert. Some precise conditions are needed for that and sooner or later they do occur. No miracle is needed.
Same thing with our Universe. Some precise condition were needed and they only occurred after uncle s monkey knows how many "failed" Universes. No miracle is needed.
R:But to be offended by the simple definition and implications of your beliefs seems a bit odd.
So you do not mind people calling you illogical, unwise and if you are pictured with an empty head?
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>I do not like Webster's dictionary, I prefer the Oxford dictionary. Most dictionaries present an "accident" with a clear negative connotation. Their primary definition would be an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.
- I looked up the oxford definition and the first example is negative but the second is not. It's the same as Webster's:
"2. something that happens unexpectedly and is not planned in advance. Their early arrival was just an accident."
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accident
So there is no conflict with the billboard's statement using the word accident.
In my previous comment I had asked you a question:
"If you as an atheist believe the universe was planned, please describe how that would even be possible without God's existence?"
Your answer does not address my question. It's a non-sequitur:
>"Same thing with our Universe. Some precise condition were needed and they only occurred after uncle s monkey knows how many "failed" Universes. No miracle is needed.
I didn't asked you about miracles, I asked how the universe could have been "planned" without a Designer. An unplanned event is an accident. Are you trying to imply that the laws of probability "planned" the universe?
>So you do not mind people calling you illogical, unwise and if you are pictured with an empty head?
- In my public school experience only one worldview was allowed - secular humanism - and if you didn't bow down to it then you were made to feel inferior and stupid. Was I offended? I suppose it felt more awkward than offensive to me, because I understood, as many do, that the atheistic view being taught in public school is not true.
William Lane Craig has described a Christian reaction to this type of situation:
"I frequently debate on university campuses on topics like "Does God exist?" or "Christianity vs. Atheism"." Sometimes students in the audience get up during the Q & A period and attack me personally or go into an abusive rant. I find that my reaction to show students is not anger, but rather simply feeling sorry for them because they're so mixed up. If you have good reason for what you believe, then instead of anger you'll feel a genuine compassion for the unbeliever, who is often so misled. Good apologetics involves "speaking the truth in love." (Eph. 4.15) - (On Guard, p. 14)
R:I looked up the oxford definition and the first example is negative but the second is not.
ReplyDeleteSo you disagree that the word "accident" has a negative connotation?
The problem lies in that negative connotation which is deemed insulting. You might be surprised, but most atheists do not perceive their existence as something negative. Not to mention the mutilated person on the billboard, who is supposed to be an atheist.
R:"If you as an atheist believe the universe was planned, please describe how that would even be possible without God's existence?"
I believe that the Universe was neither planned nor came into existence by accident. It is not an "unforeseen" event according to the laws of probability.
R:Was I offended? I suppose it felt more awkward than offensive to me...
So you do not even notice that you insult others?
R:Psalm 14.1 sums it up: ...The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Since I do not believe in a God, are you claiming I am a fool? In my book, being called a fool, is an insult. Am I weird for thinking like that even if I am a fool?
A: So you disagree that the word "accident" has a negative connotation?
ReplyDelete- I believe the word is neutral in its everyday usage - simply describing a real condition. If I spilled milk I would say "Sorry I spilled it - it was an accident." I wouldn't say "Sorry about the chance occurrence" - it's just not natural usage.
>The problem lies in that negative connotation which is deemed insulting.
-Because people can be offended does not mean it is wrong to speak the truth. This is the case with different types of people who are in in a state of denial.
>I believe that the Universe was neither planned nor came into existence by accident.
- You still have not described how a third type of option would be possible. The universe was either planned or unplanned at the beginning. You offer a non-sequitur answer:
"It is not an "unforeseen" event according to the laws of probability."
>So you do not even notice that you insult others?
- You may consider it just insulting, but I consider it an attempt to help you recognize that you are in a state of denial. It would probably offensive and insulting to an alcoholic for people to tell him or her, "You are addicted and you need to acknowledge that." In order to confront denial more effectively it is better to be blunt and not to sugarcoat words and make euphemisms.
You believe the beginning of the universe was neither planned nor an accident - but you haven't explained why you believe this is possible. In my opinion this is illogical and I'm sorry if it offends you if I point it out. It seems to underscore that you are in a state of denial.
When a person is in a state of denial there are different approaches. Most all people recommend patience with a person in denial, but others also recommend consistently confronting the person with the truth until he or she is willing to acknowledge the truth of the situation, even if the person is offended by this approach.
R:I believe the word is neutral in its everyday usage - simply describing a real condition.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe it is neutral then you are a minority. Spilling milk is not neutral, it is a unfortunate action and using the words luck and chance is not desirable in a negative situation.
R:Because people can be offended does not mean it is wrong to speak the truth.
Do not get me wrong, I am not against offensive speech. It is far better to speak frankly than to mumble in a roundabout way on your views. However, do not expect others to hold on your behalf too.
In my opinion: is the banner offensive? Yes it is and you seem to agree too, since you have not uttered a word about the brain damaged atheist in the picture. Should it have be taken down? No.
R:You still have not described how a third type of option would be possible.
I just offered you an explanation on January 21st. I told you it was most likely unplanned, but it does not mean it was an accident. Again rain does not fall from the sky accidently neither someone is planning to make rain fall in nature.
1. Our Universe is created with particles in a very precise and stable combination. (which you agree with)
2. In an infinite amount of time, particles which comprise our Universe, might combine in every possible way, including the way our Universe is shaped now. (that is the law of probability at work)
3. Ergo, our Universe would have been created sooner or later, without some outside interference. Since it is not unforeseen, it cannot be considered an accident.
Please, point out exactly where my "logical fallacy" lies in this syllogism, instead of accusing me of evading your question.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhether you use the term 'accident' or 'chance occurrence' seems to be very petty to me. The graphic image of the open head makes a powerful philosophical point in my opinion, not a personally offensive one. I'll try and show why a chance occurrence explanation of the universe is illogical.
>Should it have be taken down? No.
-At least we agree on that.
>I just offered you an explanation on January 21st. I told you it was most likely unplanned, but it does not mean it was an accident. Again rain does not fall from the sky accidently neither someone is planning to make rain fall in nature.
- Rain and rainbows are good examples that imply the universe is finely tuned for life. The laws and elements act together in incredible balance and harmony. Both atheists and theists agree with this. But consider the origin of this fine tuned universe. There are only three logical possibilities:
1. The fine tuned universe happened by necessity.
2. It happened by chance.
3. It happened by design.
1. No one seriously believes the universe HAD TO form together in a life sustaining fashion - meaning this it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to form in a non-life sustaining fashion. No serious philosophers defend this position.
2. Most - if not all atheists believe it was formed by chance. But is this logical?
Roger Penrose has pointed out that the odds of our universe's initial low entropy condition's existing by chance alone is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (123) power and the odds of our solar system existing by chance is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (60) power.
Anonymous, As far as your syllogism is concerned, you wrote:
1. Our Universe is created with particles in a very precise and stable combination. (which you agree with)
2. In an infinite amount of time, particles which comprise our Universe, might combine in every possible way, including the way our Universe is shaped now. (that is the law of probability at work)
These are interesting points you've brought up that William Lane Crag has addressed.
- Premise 2 is not acceptable for the following reasons: The elementary particle that comprise our universe aren't composed of matter. That is what quantum physics shows us. When you break matter down you find that energy, not matter, is the smallest common denominator. Therefore, these 'particle' could not have just been rearranged in a different manner. If you want to propose that different kinds of particles could have existed, then a different kind of universe would have emerged. (On Guard - p.61)
R:Roger Penrose has pointed out that the odds of our universe's initial low entropy condition's existing by chance alone is...
ReplyDeleteSo what? Yes the chances are low, but they are not impossible. Add to the equation infinity and sooner or later even the smallest possibility will come into existence.
R:The elementary particle that comprise our universe aren't composed of matter. That is what quantum physics shows us. When you break matter down you find that energy, not matter, is the smallest common denominator.
We still do not have sufficient information to claim that those particles are immaterial. I am no expert on Quantum Physics, but your views seem to collide with the majority of mainstream experts.
And you cannot just "break down" matter, you can just change its form. You cannot turn something into nothing. We have no reason to believe that Quantum particles disappear after being "broke down"
R:Therefore, these 'particle' could not have just been rearranged in a different manner.
And you came to this conclusion how? Our knowledge on their properties is extremely limited for now.
R:If you want to propose that different kinds of particles could have existed, then a different kind of universe would have emerged.
You seem to assume that there was only one "Big Bang" in the history of eternity. Could you logically back up that assumption? Why a phenomena that happened once should not happen again?
Rick: Rain and rainbows are good examples that imply the universe is finely tuned for life. The laws and elements act together in incredible balance and harmony.
ReplyDeleteRain and rainbows are no such thing Rick. Fune tuning is not obvious, and seems to be evidence against a designer.
"Harmony and balance" are vague and rubbish. The laws appear to be as simple as possible, which again doesn't seem to argue in favour of a "fine tuner".
Rick: But consider the origin of this fine tuned universe.
Lets' do just that.
Rick: 1. No one seriously believes the universe HAD TO form together in a life sustaining fashion - meaning this it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to form in a non-life sustaining fashion. No serious philosophers defend this position.
Really? So there is now evidence that the laws and "constants" of physics could be otherwise?
I believe that sort of claim requires a far more in depth understanding of the big bang event, and physics in general, to be supportable.
Rick: 2. Most - if not all atheists believe it was formed by chance. But is this logical?
Actually, most informed atheists would, I hope, say "I don't know, but we're (ie. scientists/humans) are working on it". Some might follow up with "Here is an interesting hypothesis..." and begin to detail some possible explanation.
Rick: Roger Penrose has pointed out that the odds of our universe's initial low entropy condition's existing by chance alone is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (123) power and the odds of our solar system existing by chance is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (60) power.
Who says it was chance alone though Rick?
The laws of physics would seem to rule out quite a large part of possibility state. If symmetry breaking (which seems to have left us with the physical constants that are supposedly fine tuned) was not spontaneous, then it may not be possible to get other values. If it was spontantous, the distribution might favour certain ranges of values. We really don't seem to know anough to make claims with much confidence, but that is exactly what you need for your position.
Oh, the initial state of the universe, at the big bang event, seems to be both low entropy and maximum entropy. This is an important point to understand. The big bang event was similar to a black hole, and black holes have the greatest entropy for their size.
Rick: - Premise 2 is not acceptable for the following reasons: The elementary particle that comprise our universe aren't composed of matter. That is what quantum physics shows us. When you break matter down you find that energy, not matter, is the smallest common denominator.
This is bullshit Rick. "Matter" and "Energy" are the same stuff. I think some guy named Einstein demonstrated this around a century ago.
Rick: Therefore, these 'particle' could not have just been rearranged in a different manner.
What is meant by "different manner" here Rick?
I took Anonymous' point to be indicating a "Boltzmann" universe, where over all it is in a state of maximum entropy, but on smaller scales entropy drops, and things like out universe could appear. There are arguments against this position, but this is not one of them.
Rick: If you want to propose that different kinds of particles could have existed, then a different kind of universe would have emerged. (On Guard - p.61)
So what?
Thanks for intervening, Havok. Rick is notorious for the misinterpretation of facts and he stubbornly sticks to his mistakes. He also has no interest in QM outside of his cosmological crap argument. My knowledge on QM is far from being adequate to spot all the nonsense so I am thankful for the help. Be sure to correct me if I start throwing rubbish. 8)
ReplyDeleteH:Fine tuning is not obvious, and seems to be evidence against a designer.
I have only one thing I disagree with. Fine tuning is a subjective term from the start, therefore it is perfectly acceptable. Since life is possible in our Universe and we have no knowledge of other Universes, we may just assume our Universe as the "ideal" one.
Anonymous: Fine tuning is a subjective term from the start, therefore it is perfectly acceptable.
ReplyDeleteSort of, but not quite.
"Fine Tuning" tends to refer to the claim that if the constants of nature were minutely different, then life (as we know it) could not exist.
This is sort of true, but tends to work against the theistic claim. Since a supernatural "creator" could sustain life in an unfriendly environment, and this would be evidence in favour of such a being, the fact that the constants are such that life can and does exist undermines the claim. It seems to be basic probability.
Rick: Since life is possible in our Universe and we have no knowledge of other Universes, we may just assume our Universe as the "ideal" one
We also know little to nothing about the different ways in which "life" might develop, and so every discussion of fine tuning necessarily involves the assumption that our sort of life is the only possible form of life.
It's the argument the puddle used coupled with an argument from ignorance.
Ps. Vic Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning" does a good job of explaining these problems with the "Fine Tuning argument"
ReplyDeleteYou convinced me. I guess we should just say that our Universe was finely tuned to give us the small possibility to appear and was also remarkably tuned to give us the big chance to disappear 8)
ReplyDeleteEven that is too strong I think.
ReplyDeleteTo claim "fine tuning" you're claiming that tuning was possible, and this is far from obviously true (though I think most speculative multi-verse hypothesis do assume this to be the case).
I think we ought to simply stick with the weak anthropic principle - that physics is such that we can exist (basically a tautology).
Oh, and the term "tuning" implies a "tuner", which is far from obvious (and seems very probably to be incoherent and impossible, as far as Rick's "tuner" goes).
ReplyDeleteIn the end we still have to embrace ignorance and hope that science one day will offer us a better explanation
ReplyDeleteIn the end we still have to admit we are ignorant and hope that science will one day provide a more accurate explanation.
ReplyDeleteExactly.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Rick, we should not assume our conclusion, nor should we assume knowledge where there is none. We should take epistemological concerns seriously, and only accept rational, well developed explanations rather than "God of the gaps" claims.
There is no shame in saying "I don't know" and admitting ignorance. There is shame in claiming to know when in fact you do not.
Ps. We should hope that science or some other rationally justified and generally reliable method of acquiring knowledge fills in the gaps :-)
ReplyDeleteJust an observation, but doesn't it seem a little hypocritical that Rick points out this single instance of a billboard being taken down, but I see no real reference to the numerous non-religious billboards, advertisements and displays which are refused, vandalised, destroyed, taken down etc.
ReplyDeleteMethinks our host is engaged in a serious case of special pleading for Christianity ;-)
What? Special pleading from a Christian??? Impossible.
ReplyDeleteMy turn! My turn!
ReplyDeleteRick said:
If existence began without an "assignable cause" is it possible an assignable cause for existence simply emerged 'after the fact' and developed over time? No, because every known cause can be theoretically traced to a prior cause, except for the the existence of God who by definition does not need a cause because God is eternally existent. This is outlined in the Kalam cosmological argument.
[…]
When a person is in a state of denial there are different approaches. Most all people recommend patience with a person in denial, but others also recommend consistently confronting the person with the truth until he or she is willing to acknowledge the truth of the situation, even if the person is offended by this approach.
Rick, you are in a state of denial. The Kalam Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of any gods. Are you willing to acknowledge this truth?
Moreover, no need to go to the Kalam to disprove your god. Your usage of the word 'eternal' automatically put your god in the conceptual realm and I don't see how you can prove that it exists outside of this realm. Are you willing to acknowledge this truth?
Perhaps you don't understand... eternal is a word we use to essentially mean 'infinite'. This word is purely conceptual. We all understand what it means in our minds and on paper because we have ways to represent what eternal/infinite means. However, just like the character 'i' that is used to represent the imaginary part of complex numbers, infinity is NOT an actual quantity that can be used to described real things that actually exists.
This reminds me of a joke I read somewhere. A physicist talks about another physicist and compliment him on his work, but says that he has only one little problem with him: he believes black holes exist.
The laws and elements act together in incredible balance and harmony. Both atheists and theists agree with this. But consider the origin of this fine tuned universe. There are only three logical possibilities:
ReplyDelete1. The fine tuned universe happened by necessity.
2. It happened by chance.
3. It happened by design.
I am not sure about this. Do atheists and theists really agree on the meaning of 'fine tune'? I feel like for the theist, the game is already over: fine tune implies intelligently designed and thus GOD. For atheists, fine tune only means that we can have an incredible level of precisions in our measurements and we realize how extremely complex and grand the universe is since it could have been any other way.
1. No one seriously believes the universe HAD TO form together in a life sustaining fashion - meaning this it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to form in a non-life sustaining fashion. No serious philosophers defend this position.
Actually Rick that's pretty funny because it's very close to your position (or your buddy W.L.Craig). You don't claim that the universe did not have to happen by necessity, but you do claim that God exists... by necessity! LOL!
2. Most - if not all atheists believe it was formed by chance. But is this logical?
It's not logical the way you put it because these probabilities don't mean anything... Want to do a quick experiment?
Take a coin. Throw it up across your room. Measure your room, up to the millimeter, and then compute the probability that the coin you threw landed exactly at the precise position that it did. OMG! It's a miracle! How could this coin fall exactly at this position!? It must be an odd of 1 over several millions right? Ok, now repeat the process for a few other coins. OMG! It's now even more of a miracle! What were the odds that all these coins fall exactly where they are!? You now need to multiply the odds so if it was in the order of power 6 and you threw 10 ten coins, we are now in the order of power 60!
This is what people like Penrose do. They look at the universe now and calculate the probability that the universe is just the way it is exactly... now. It's meaningless. Life evolved on this planet because of the way the planet has been. The planet was formed that way because of the way the solar system was made. The solar system was made because it was part of a galaxy, and so on.
Yes, it is fantastic to think about how everything would be different if just this one number would be slightly different, but on a philosophical level, it means absolutely nothing. We just describe what we see, and we do it with astonishing precision and nowadays at a level of understanding that geniuses like Newton could not even dream of. That is the real miracle!
(p.s. These things should be discussed in the other thread since they involve proof of God, but ironically the other thread turned to morality ;-))
Hugo: (p.s. These things should be discussed in the other thread since they involve proof of God, but ironically the other thread turned to morality ;-))
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Rick doesn't actually want to delve into any of these topics, and hence the discussion "flutters" around, as Rick's claims are shown to be false or superficial. I suspect that this is because, on Rick's view, he already knows the "Truth", so why bother going to all the trouble of understanding it?
As Anonymous has observed, a discussion with Rick is basically an exercise in futility - it's only of interest for the LOLz :-)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteR:Roger Penrose has pointed out that the odds of our universe's initial low entropy condition's existing by chance alone is...
So what? Yes the chances are low, but they are not impossible. Add to the equation infinity and sooner or later even the smallest possibility will come into existence.
- Since Hubble's discovery of the red shift over 80 years ago, the most common understanding among scientists is that the universe had a beginning and is expanding at an accelerated speed (which will continue to expand 'eternally'). In other words, there is no eternal cycle of big bangs occurring.
- The beginning of the universe marks the beginning of time, space and matter as far as many cosmologists understand it. On January 11, Alexander Vilenkin, a leading physicist-cosmologist, outlined the following summary at Stephen Hawking's birthday celebration, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -
New Scientists magazine outlined how Vilenkin debunked a lot of new theories in his presentation:
The New Scientist article requires a subscription, so I quote here from another website that summarizes the situation:
"Here are the models in brief and why they don’t work:
Eternal inflation: Built on Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal, this model imagines bubble universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever. Vilenkin and Guth had debunked this idea as recently as 2003. The equations still require a boundary in the past.
Eternal cycles: A universe that bounces endlessly from expansion to contraction has a certain appeal to some, but it won’t work either. “Disorder increases with time,” Grossman explained. “So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered.” Logically, then, if there had already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe would already been in a state of maximum disorder, even if the universe gets bigger with each bounce. Scratch that model.
Eternal egg: One last holdout was the “cosmic egg” model that has the universe hatching out of some eternally-existing static state. “Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” No way could the egg be eternal.
The upshot of this is clear. No model of an eternal universe works. Vilenkin concluded, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” An editorial at New Scientist called this, “The Genesis Problem.”"
Why is it called 'the Genesis problem?' because the implications support the Genesis account of the beginning of the universe and secular scientists see this as a problem.
Havok,
ReplyDelete>"Matter" and "Energy" are the same stuff. I think some guy named Einstein demonstrated this around a century ago.
- I agree with you, Havok. I was addressing Anonymous' statement: "In an infinite amount of time, particles which comprise our Universe, might combine in every possible way, including the way our Universe is shaped now."
- I was trying to show that the 'particles' of the universe are not simple building blocks which can be rearranged any which way.
"...most of what composes the "mass" of ordinary matter is due to the binding energy of quarks within protons and neutrons.[60]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
That's not addressing the point Anonymous made.
"In other words, most of what composes the "mass" of ordinary matter is due to the binding energy of quarks within protons and neutrons.[60]
Rick: Since Hubble's discovery of the red shift over 80 years ago, the most common understanding among scientists is that the universe had a beginning and is expanding at an accelerated speed (which will continue to expand 'eternally'). In other words, there is no eternal cycle of big bangs occurring.
ReplyDeleteActually Rick, this is not true.
This was the understanding, but has not been for quite some time.
When we take QM into consideration, all we can say is that some ~14 billion years ago the causally connected patch of reality we call the "visible universe" was very small, dense and hot.
We do not have a good understanding of how QM and gravity (Einsteins Relativity) interact, and so while we can make some predictions, we should remain cautious.
Rick: The beginning of the universe marks the beginning of time, space and matter as far as many cosmologists understand it.
And? That doesn't mean there was nothing "before" the big bang event. In fact, your favourite, WLC, argues that there was something prior to it. Instead of extrapolating from existing physics, however, he makes grandiose claims without any firm basis in reality (he claims God existed).
Rick: On January 11, Alexander Vilenkin, a leading physicist-cosmologist, outlined the following summary at Stephen Hawking's birthday celebration, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -
Is he talking about our visible patch of the universe, or the entirety of reality?
Is he talking about the results of the theorem outlined in a paper he wrote with Borde and Guth?
You simply don't give enough information to support your claims.
All the Vilenkin quotes seem to indicate is that none of the current models works - something which I would agree with.
What you (and other Christian apologists) do is shove your God into this gap, without providing the required detail which would show this to be a likely explanation.
Rick: Why is it called 'the Genesis problem?' because the implications support the Genesis account of the beginning of the universe and secular scientists see this as a problem.
This is simply bullshit.
Genesis contradicts known physics so badly it is a wonder that anyone actually takes it seriously as anything other than the myth that it is. There are other accounts of the origin of the universe from other faith traditions which get closer to the mark than Genesis.
Then there are other possible explanations which get far closer - those speculative hypothesis from scientists.
But of course you reject them because you are simply certain that you have the capital "T" "Truth" in your back pocket.
You don't actually care to understand Vilenkin's claims - all you care about is that they seem to support your (false) belief system.
Rick: I agree with you, Havok.
ReplyDeleteThen why did you claim the opposite Rick?
Rick: I was trying to show that the 'particles' of the universe are not simple building blocks which can be rearranged any which way.
Anonymous' point was that in an infinite universe, we would expect our visible universe to come about as simply a local fluctuation in the otherwise uniform background. You're point did not address that in the least.
It doesn't matter where the "matter/energy" of the universe comes from (and most of it is from Dark Energy, not from ordinary matter), that is completely beside the point for Anonymous' observation.
Hugo,
ReplyDelete>Moreover, no need to go to the Kalam to disprove your god. Your usage of the word 'eternal' automatically put your god in the conceptual realm and I don't see how you can prove that it exists outside of this realm. Are you willing to acknowledge this truth?
- I agree, Hugo, that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. That is a central point of the Kalam argument - that the universe required a beginning. But in proposing that 'eternal must always be conceptual' or that there is necessarily a paradox in the Christian view of eternity, it may help you to read these articles:
Subject: Omniscience and Actual Infinity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7129
Subject: Does God Know an Actually Infinite Number of Things?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8618
R:In other words, there is no eternal cycle of big bangs occurring.
ReplyDeleteFor now we only know it is expanding. We have no knowledge if at some point it will not start shrinking. We might just be part of some cycle of our Universe expanding/shrinking.
R:The beginning of the universe marks the beginning of time, space and matter as far as many cosmologists understand it.
Yes, it is the beginning of time, space and matter as we understand it. That does not mean that before the Big Bang nothing existed in any form. We just have no knowledge how things might have been before.
R:“Disorder increases with time,” Grossman explained. “So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered.” Logically, then, if there had already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe would already been in a state of maximum disorder, even if the universe gets bigger with each bounce.
And I can offer you three logical scenario, which would undermine Grossman s claim.
1. So would you claim that the increase in disorder is infinite? Personally, I doubt it. What would happen if we arrive at the moment, when the Universe hits its maximum level of disorder? We have no knowledge how particles would behave at a maximum disorder level. Therefore, we cannot exclude the claim that the Universe might start "repairing" itself.
2. Even more to the point, we cannot say for sure that "Disorder increases with time" is an absolute law. We have only been observing a small amount of the existence. Our Universe might just be one of many and it might "reproduce" in a close way to biological life forms. The "new" Universe would just use the particles from the old one ("eating" it from the inside) to sustain itself and grow until it "gives birth" to another one.
3. Furthermore, we still might live in a close to infinite cycle of Universes. We just live in a Universe orderly enough to sustain a small blue planet, where we live. We are just in the middle of the road to destruction (though, I personally doubt it)
R:Why is it called 'the Genesis problem?' because the implications support the Genesis account of the beginning of the universe and secular scientists see this as a problem.
Certainly an incredibly "unbiased" source. Though, it might just be using the name as a metaphor.
Havok,
ReplyDelete>All the Vilenkin quotes seem to indicate is that none of the current models works - something which I would agree with.
- I don't believe "none" of them is the correct word. - "The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble." from 1929.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
Since Edwin Hubble first proposed Hubble's law in 1929, the concept of an expanding and accelerating universe has implied the universe has a cosmic singularity beginning, first derisively referred to by Hoyle as the "Big Bang."
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/hubble-s-law#ixzz1kNt2ONPL
Some atheists have made interesting statements in order to attempt to refute that the universe began to exist as a cosmic singularity: "Most philosophers would argue that abstract objects such as numbers, sets, and propositions are actually existent, despite the fact that they have no spatial or temporal dimensions."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/greg_scorzo/kalam.html
Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument has been published in secular peer-reviewed journals, such as "Astrophysics and Space Science."
Astrophysics and Space Science
Volume 269-270, Number 0, 721-738, DOI: 10.1023/A:1017083700096
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j66361146539wh38/
As per your previous particle comment:
"Matter" and "Energy" are the same stuff.
It is a generalized truth. But in my opinion it is a much more complicated than this statement implies. They are not exactly the same if you want to get technical. Matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. However, scientists note "energy does not have mass except in a simplistic sense; it is better to speak of its mass equivalent..."
http://www.last-word.com/content_handling/show_tree/tree_id/3025.html
Einstein's E = mc2 formula helps interpret mass–energy equivalence as a fundamental principle that follows from the relativistic symmetries of space and time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence
Does any of this or all of this imply our universe would have formed as a "necessity?" Personally, I don't think so. I think you need to have a very convincing argument to state the universe formed as it did by necessity and not by chance as a materialist. To say "The laws of physics must have formed the fine-tuned universe exactly as it is" - is not a logical deduction. There has to be a lot more intermediate information between the laws of physics and the fine-tuned universe.
Rick: ...the concept of an expanding and accelerating universe has implied the universe has a cosmic singularity beginning...
ReplyDeletefor universe insert "comoving patch of space" for universe, and you're not too far wrong (though of course, it seems there was no singularity)
Rick: Some atheists have made interesting statements in order to attempt to refute that the universe began to exist as a cosmic singularity:
If we assume Relativity holds sway all the way back, then we get a classical singularity, with all that entails (beginning of everything, etc).
When we take quantum effects into account, we do not get a singularity. While there is currently no settled theory fo quantum gravity we can (and physicists have) used what we do know to come up with some speculative hypothesis.
So, no singularity Rick.
Rick: Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument has been published in secular peer-reviewed journals, such as "Astrophysics and Space Science."
So what Rick? ALL of the models that you and WLC dismiss with a wave of your hand (because it doesn't fit with your "Truth") have been published in such journals, and I'd wager there have been far more papers published about them than there has been about WLC's Kalam, which has it's own far more serious problems.
Rick: But in my opinion it is a much more complicated than this statement implies. They are not exactly the same if you want to get technical.
So Rick. We have the standard model of particle physics, which details ALL of the known particles (including photons). Care to tell me which ones are "energy" and which ones are "matter", and why, when they're interchangeable, you bother to make the distinction?
To me it seems it's a distinction without a difference.
Rick: Does any of this or all of this imply our universe would have formed as a "necessity?"
How about we simply accept that something exists, and since we know the universe (not just our exists, we might as well stop there?
Rick: Personally, I don't think so.
Of course you don't - because it doesn't fit with your ideological commitments.
Rick: I think you need to have a very convincing argument to state the universe formed as it did by necessity and not by chance as a materialist.
Yet you'll happily accept any old argument which concludes "Therefore God did it!".
Special pleading again.
RIck: To say "The laws of physics must have formed the fine-tuned universe exactly as it is" - is not a logical deduction.
You're assuming your conclusion again Rick.
Fine tuning implies a fine tuner, and such a thing is certainly contentious (and I would say, flat out wrong).
Rick: There has to be a lot more intermediate information between the laws of physics and the fine-tuned universe.
Again, you require other explanations to be absolutely exhaustive before you'll accept them, but the "God did it" hypothesis needs no fleshing out as far as you're concerned. For example, you seem to require an hypothesis of physics to explain exactly why a specific constant has value X and not something else. Yet there is nothing even close to that for a theistic explanation, yet you are trumpeting from the rooftops that theism is correct.
Rick, the Kalam doesn't get you to God, even if it were sound and valid, which it doesn't appear to be.
The arguments that get you from there to God (esp. the God of traditional Christianity) are long, arduous, and as far as I can tell, usually nonsense, and false.
Do you even understand the things that you're claiming to know Rick, or is it that it "sounds good" to you?
Rick: Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument has been published in secular peer-reviewed journals, such as "Astrophysics and Space Science."
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, that's the only place it has been published, and the same paper (with what looks like some minor additions) has been published twice.
Since it doesn't appear to be standard practice to reprint articles in journals, especially when they're basically unchanged, I have to wonder whether the paper was peer reviewed, or reviewed for it's scientific content, or whether it appeared as more of an opinion piece.
I also wonder what sort of response it generated from the academic community, whether it has been cited at all, and whether it led to any further research (I am fairly sure the answer to the final 2 points is "no").
Have you bothered to read the paper Rick, or is the fact that something "theism friendly" was actually published that is noteworthy?
@Rick,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are basically trying to 3 people at the same time but it's quite strange that you don't seem to have any original thought of your own. All you do is quote WLC. Is He your prophet? Can you explain what you believe and why without linking to His "Teachings"?
>Moreover, no need to go to the Kalam to disprove your god. Your usage of the word 'eternal' automatically put your god in the conceptual realm and I don't see how you can prove that it exists outside of this realm. Are you willing to acknowledge this truth?
- I agree, Hugo, that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. That is a central point of the Kalam argument - that the universe required a beginning. But in proposing that 'eternal must always be conceptual' or that there is necessarily a paradox in the Christian view of eternity, it may help you to read these articles:
Subject: Omniscience and Actual Infinity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7129
Subject: Does God Know an Actually Infinite Number of Things?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8618
Perhaps I am the one who is missing something here but all I see is a big special pleading fallacy. God is the only non-conceptual infinite thing because... he just is, by definition. Just like God does not require a cause, by definition... These are just assertions. They are meaningless and remain anchored in the mind of the believers only to remain there. They are not objective facts.
The articles are clearly not intended to justify God's existence. What they do is assert that God exists and then go on to describe God in terms of conceptual terms, and then claim that it all fits together. Yes, I agree that it all fits together, but how can you justify such belief Rick?
How can you justify believing that something purely conceptual exists?
Explain to me what WLC means by a non-conceptual infinity other than defining it as 'God's infinity'; can you?
Oh ya I was going to forger that:
ReplyDelete[...]scientists note "energy does not have mass except in a simplistic sense; it is better to speak of its mass equivalent..."
http://www.last-word.com/content_handling/show_tree/tree_id/3025.html
That is hilarious because you quoted the section 'the last word' of NewScientist which is comments by readers... If you were an actual NewScientist subscriber you would know that but I guess you prefer to just quote a few things here and there without really understanding the context?
Sorry Rick but you are exposed for your ignorance over and over again on these threads. Time for you to stop pretending you have a logical God belief. You don't, and you know it. You say it clearly once in a while by claiming that you were not convinced by any of this.
In other words, you are lying for Jesus Rick. You have faith. It makes you feel good, and that's it.
If you really want to learn a thing or two, buy NewScientist, or subscribe online. I have been reading it for over 3 years now and I am not disappointed by this magazine...
Hugo (and Havok),
ReplyDelete>God is the only non-conceptual infinite thing because... he just is, by definition. Just like God does not require a cause, by definition... These are just assertions.
- These are assertions that are logically cohesive and in harmony with the known evidence. That's quite a big difference from atheistic ones. :-) To say that something like "The laws of physics must have necessarily produced the fine tuned universe" simply isn't logical based on what we now know. Even if you grant the the laws of physics just magically exist without a specific cause, there is no reason why the 'must' produce a fine-tuned universe. To call it a chance possibility is too kind because the laws of physics do not produce new forms of matter. As I've outlined in my latest post, Vilenkin has mathematically shown a creation point exists for the universe. The logical conclusion is that creation ex nihilo is performed by a Creator. Even Hawking, the adamant God denier, is willing to admit that these are the implications, a cosmological singularity, though he apparently refuses to accept the implications at face value.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/01/vilenkins-math-supports-creation-model.html
Ex nihilo nihil fit
ReplyDeleteRick: These are assertions that are logically cohesive and in harmony with the known evidence. That's quite a big difference from atheistic ones. :-)
ReplyDeleteActually, your own beliefs go against large parts of scientific knowledge (conservation laws being broken by an interventionist deity, for one), and do not seem to be logically cohesive (there is the problem of putting together a logically consistent definition of "God", which remains unresolved).
Rick: To say that something like "The laws of physics must have necessarily produced the fine tuned universe" simply isn't logical based on what we now know.
Since we don't know much, this seems just as supported as the alternative claim that the laws of physics could have produces any (logically possible) universe.
Rick: Even if you grant the the laws of physics just magically exist without a specific cause, there is no reason why the 'must' produce a fine-tuned universe.
This exact claim works against the theistic hypothesis as well - why this specific universe and not another? Why did you God make various cosmic parameters as we find them, and not different?
To claim that the theist does not face such difficulties is to stick your head in the sand.
Rick: To call it a chance possibility is too kind because the laws of physics do not produce new forms of matter.
This is word salad Rick. Whatever you were trying to say here, you failed to say it.
Rick: As I've outlined in my latest post, Vilenkin has mathematically shown a creation point exists for the universe.
And as has been shown to you, you are wrong. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that some models are incomplete, meaning they're not a total explanation in themselves.
Rick: The logical conclusion is that creation ex nihilo is performed by a Creator.
This is not the logical conclusion at all.
The logical position to take is to say we don't actually know. But that doesn't fit with your delusions, and so you can't acknowledge it.
Rick: Even Hawking, the adamant God denier, is willing to admit that these are the implications, a cosmological singularity, though he apparently refuses to accept the implications at face value.
Hawking, with Hartle, proposed an hypothesis which is not subject to the GBV theorem, and compatible with all of our evidence.
Stenger gives a similar one (as does Vilenkin, I believe).
As noted, the GBV thereom makes some assumptions which may not apply to a specific model. That you, following WLC, claim that it applies to anything and everything is your own problem.