tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post5684929200918041661..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: Banned Christian Billboard Highlights Illogical Legal DecisionRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-54998496902380992932012-01-30T19:38:55.883-08:002012-01-30T19:38:55.883-08:00Rick: These are assertions that are logically cohe...<b>Rick: These are assertions that are logically cohesive and in harmony with the known evidence. That's quite a big difference from atheistic ones. :-)</b><br />Actually, 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).<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br />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?<br />To claim that the theist does not face such difficulties is to stick your head in the sand.<br /><br /><b>Rick: To call it a chance possibility is too kind because the laws of physics do not produce new forms of matter.</b><br />This is word salad Rick. Whatever you were trying to say here, you failed to say it.<br /><br /><b>Rick: As I've outlined in my latest post, Vilenkin has mathematically shown a creation point exists for the universe.</b><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Rick: The logical conclusion is that creation ex nihilo is performed by a Creator.</b><br />This is not the logical conclusion at all.<br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br />Hawking, with Hartle, proposed an hypothesis which is not subject to the GBV theorem, and compatible with all of our evidence.<br />Stenger gives a similar one (as does Vilenkin, I believe).<br /><br />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.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-66890760408589612912012-01-25T06:45:12.523-08:002012-01-25T06:45:12.523-08:00Ex nihilo nihil fitEx nihilo nihil fitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-78325337600156321092012-01-25T00:50:11.369-08:002012-01-25T00:50:11.369-08:00Hugo (and Havok),
>God is the only non-concept...Hugo (and Havok),<br /><br />>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. <br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/01/vilenkins-math-supports-creation-model.htmlRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-52547283613894679432012-01-24T21:00:52.329-08:002012-01-24T21:00:52.329-08:00Oh ya I was going to forger that:
[...]scientists...Oh ya I was going to forger that:<br /><br /><i>[...]scientists note "energy does not have mass except in a simplistic sense; it is better to speak of its mass equivalent..."<br /><br />http://www.last-word.com/content_handling/show_tree/tree_id/3025.html</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In other words, you are lying for Jesus Rick. You have faith. It makes you feel good, and that's it.<br /><br />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...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-5437522400014710962012-01-24T20:57:22.440-08:002012-01-24T20:57:22.440-08:00@Rick,
I understand that you are basically trying...@Rick,<br /><br />I 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"?<br /><br /><i>>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?<br /><br />- 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:<br /><br />Subject: Omniscience and Actual Infinity<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7129<br /><br />Subject: Does God Know an Actually Infinite Number of Things?<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8618 </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />How can you justify believing that something purely conceptual exists? <br />Explain to me what WLC means by a non-conceptual infinity other than defining it as 'God's infinity'; can you?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-568318425847107922012-01-24T13:25:30.176-08:002012-01-24T13:25:30.176-08:00Rick: Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argumen...<b>Rick: Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument has been published in secular peer-reviewed journals, such as "Astrophysics and Space Science."</b><br />As 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.<br /><br />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.<br />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").<br /><br />Have you bothered to read the paper Rick, or is the fact that something "theism friendly" was actually published that is noteworthy?Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-9818121623083301622012-01-24T13:19:53.609-08:002012-01-24T13:19:53.609-08:00Rick: ...the concept of an expanding and accelerat...<b>Rick: ...the concept of an expanding and accelerating universe has implied the universe has a cosmic singularity beginning...</b><br />for universe insert "comoving patch of space" for universe, and you're not too far wrong (though of course, it seems there was no singularity)<br /><br /><b>Rick: Some atheists have made interesting statements in order to attempt to refute that the universe began to exist as a cosmic singularity:</b><br />If we assume Relativity holds sway all the way back, then we get a classical singularity, with all that entails (beginning of everything, etc).<br />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.<br />So, no singularity Rick.<br /><br /><b>Rick: Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument has been published in secular peer-reviewed journals, such as "Astrophysics and Space Science."</b><br />So what Rick? <i>ALL</i> 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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br />So Rick. We have the standard model of particle physics, which details <i>ALL</i> 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?<br />To me it seems it's a distinction without a difference.<br /><br /><b>Rick: Does any of this or all of this imply our universe would have formed as a "necessity?"</b><br />How about we simply accept that something exists, and since we know the universe (not just our exists, we might as well stop there?<br /><br /><b>Rick: Personally, I don't think so.</b><br />Of course you don't - because it doesn't fit with your ideological commitments.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br />Yet you'll happily accept any old argument which concludes "Therefore God did it!".<br />Special pleading again.<br /><br /><br /><b>RIck: To say "The laws of physics must have formed the fine-tuned universe exactly as it is" - is not a logical deduction.</b><br />You're assuming your conclusion again Rick.<br />Fine tuning implies a fine tuner, and such a thing is certainly contentious (and I would say, flat out wrong).<br /><br /><b>Rick: There has to be a lot more intermediate information between the laws of physics and the fine-tuned universe.</b><br />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.<br /><br />Rick, the Kalam doesn't get you to God, even if it were sound and valid, which it doesn't appear to be.<br />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.<br /><br />Do you even understand the things that you're claiming to know Rick, or is it that it "sounds good" to you?Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-47659723481521580242012-01-24T06:37:23.584-08:002012-01-24T06:37:23.584-08:00Havok,
>All the Vilenkin quotes seem to indica...Havok,<br /><br />>All the Vilenkin quotes seem to indicate is that none of the current models works - something which I would agree with.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/hubble-s-law#ixzz1kNt2ONPL<br /><br />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."<br /><br />http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/greg_scorzo/kalam.html<br /><br />Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument has been published in secular peer-reviewed journals, such as "Astrophysics and Space Science."<br /><br />Astrophysics and Space Science<br />Volume 269-270, Number 0, 721-738, DOI: 10.1023/A:1017083700096<br /><br />http://www.springerlink.com/content/j66361146539wh38/<br /><br />As per your previous particle comment: <br /><br />"Matter" and "Energy" are the same stuff.<br /><br />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..."<br /><br />http://www.last-word.com/content_handling/show_tree/tree_id/3025.html<br /><br />Einstein's E = mc2 formula helps interpret mass–energy equivalence as a fundamental principle that follows from the relativistic symmetries of space and time.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence<br /><br />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 Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-47418489569450789362012-01-23T22:29:19.193-08:002012-01-23T22:29:19.193-08:00R:In other words, there is no eternal cycle of big...R:In other words, there is no eternal cycle of big bangs occurring.<br /><br />For 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.<br /><br />R:The beginning of the universe marks the beginning of time, space and matter as far as many cosmologists understand it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And I can offer you three logical scenario, which would undermine Grossman s claim.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Certainly an incredibly "unbiased" source. Though, it might just be using the name as a metaphor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-60209312997511279252012-01-23T22:14:41.246-08:002012-01-23T22:14:41.246-08:00Hugo,
>Moreover, no need to go to the Kalam to...Hugo,<br /><br />>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?<br /><br />- 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:<br /><br />Subject: Omniscience and Actual Infinity<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7129<br /><br />Subject: Does God Know an Actually Infinite Number of Things?<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8618Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-7528874221072918482012-01-23T21:58:10.423-08:002012-01-23T21:58:10.423-08:00Rick: I agree with you, Havok.
Then why did you cl...<b>Rick: I agree with you, Havok.</b><br />Then why did you claim the opposite Rick?<br /><br /><b>Rick: I was trying to show that the 'particles' of the universe are not simple building blocks which can be rearranged any which way.</b><br />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.<br /><br />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.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-6547453062999002252012-01-23T21:54:52.461-08:002012-01-23T21:54:52.461-08:00Rick: Since Hubble's discovery of the red shif...<b>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.</b><br />Actually Rick, this is not true.<br />This was the understanding, but has not been for quite some time.<br />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.<br />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.<br /><br /><b>Rick: The beginning of the universe marks the beginning of time, space and matter as far as many cosmologists understand it.</b><br />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).<br /><br /><b>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.” - </b><br />Is he talking about our visible patch of the universe, or the entirety of reality?<br />Is he talking about the results of the theorem outlined in a paper he wrote with Borde and Guth?<br /><br />You simply don't give enough information to support your claims.<br /><br />All the Vilenkin quotes seem to indicate is that none of the current models works - something which I would agree with.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br />This is simply bullshit.<br />Genesis contradicts <i>known</i> 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.<br />Then there are other possible explanations which get far closer - those speculative hypothesis from scientists.<br />But of course you reject them because you are simply certain that you have the capital "T" "Truth" in your back pocket.<br />You don't actually care to understand Vilenkin's claims - all you care about is that they seem to support your (false) belief system.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-43229933874903147262012-01-23T21:49:59.929-08:002012-01-23T21:49:59.929-08:00Havok,
>"Matter" and "Energy&qu...Havok,<br /><br />>"Matter" and "Energy" are the same stuff. I think some guy named Einstein demonstrated this around a century ago.<br /><br />- 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."<br /><br />- I was trying to show that the 'particles' of the universe are not simple building blocks which can be rearranged any which way.<br /><br />"...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<br /><br /><br />That's not addressing the point Anonymous made. <br /><br /><br />"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 Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-68253398792590741352012-01-23T21:40:59.105-08:002012-01-23T21:40:59.105-08:00Anonymous,
R:Roger Penrose has pointed out that t...Anonymous,<br /><br />R:Roger Penrose has pointed out that the odds of our universe's initial low entropy condition's existing by chance alone is...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />- 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.” - <br /><br />New Scientists magazine outlined how Vilenkin debunked a lot of new theories in his presentation:<br /><br />The New Scientist article requires a subscription, so I quote here from another website that summarizes the situation:<br /><br /> "Here are the models in brief and why they don’t work:<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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.”"<br /><br />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.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-49711627201690029572012-01-23T21:30:22.425-08:002012-01-23T21:30:22.425-08:00Hugo: (p.s. These things should be discussed in th...<b>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 ;-))</b><br />It 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?<br /><br />As Anonymous has observed, a discussion with Rick is basically an exercise in futility - it's only of interest for the LOLz :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-35859115347605520952012-01-23T21:21:18.575-08:002012-01-23T21:21:18.575-08:00The laws and elements act together in incredible b...<i>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:<br /><br />1. The fine tuned universe happened by necessity.<br />2. It happened by chance.<br />3. It happened by design.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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!<br /><br /><i>2. Most - if not all atheists believe it was formed by chance. But is this logical?</i><br /><br />It's not logical the way you put it because these probabilities don't mean anything... Want to do a quick experiment?<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />(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 ;-))World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-13246071048415962162012-01-23T21:20:47.534-08:002012-01-23T21:20:47.534-08:00My turn! My turn!
Rick said:
If existence began ...My turn! My turn!<br /><br />Rick said:<br /><br /><i>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.<br /><br />[…]<br /><br />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.</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-34587347918730320822012-01-23T21:00:57.475-08:002012-01-23T21:00:57.475-08:00What? Special pleading from a Christian??? Impossi...What? Special pleading from a Christian??? Impossible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-45278183224590164692012-01-23T20:51:50.863-08:002012-01-23T20:51:50.863-08:00Just an observation, but doesn't it seem a lit...Just 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.<br /><br />Methinks our host is engaged in a serious case of special pleading for Christianity ;-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-40802233135416536022012-01-23T20:49:14.899-08:002012-01-23T20:49:14.899-08:00Ps. We should hope that science or some other rati...Ps. We should hope that science or <i>some other</i> rationally justified and generally reliable method of acquiring knowledge fills in the gaps :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-18166489513063074742012-01-23T20:47:45.239-08:002012-01-23T20:47:45.239-08:00Exactly.
Unlike Rick, we should not assume our con...Exactly.<br />Unlike 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.<br /><br />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.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-41170165552975239902012-01-23T20:45:13.155-08:002012-01-23T20:45:13.155-08:00In the end we still have to admit we are ignorant ...In the end we still have to admit we are ignorant and hope that science will one day provide a more accurate explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-88186973687659427452012-01-23T20:43:20.744-08:002012-01-23T20:43:20.744-08:00In the end we still have to embrace ignorance and ...In the end we still have to embrace ignorance and hope that science one day will offer us a better explanationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-86903436063527554082012-01-23T20:37:59.842-08:002012-01-23T20:37:59.842-08:00Oh, and the term "tuning" implies a &quo...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).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-8535917276005155572012-01-23T20:36:59.745-08:002012-01-23T20:36:59.745-08:00Even that is too strong I think.
To claim "fi...Even that is too strong I think.<br />To 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).<br />I think we ought to simply stick with the weak anthropic principle - that physics is such that we can exist (basically a tautology).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.com