Originally posted by VoidSpirityeah, 12 minutes in and he didn't say anything. 12 minutes of my life wasted. thanks, but no thanks. maybe you can summarize the remaining half hour of the interview, if he says anything at all.
it aught to be entertaining. i'm already intrigued by the title "[b]treasure from the book of job."
the book of job portrays god as a complete a-hole who gambles with people's lives and then utters some poetic macho-nonsense when people question his motives. i wonder what "treasure" ross thinks he found among that filth.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI don't know how old you are. But I think you should be worried about far more than a mere 12 minutes of your life wasted with your misrable atheist belief. That's a dead end street for sure.
yeah, 12 minutes in and he didn't say anything. 12 minutes of my life wasted. thanks, but no thanks. maybe you can summarize the remaining half hour of the interview, if he says anything at all.
I wouldn't want to want one second on such a delusion as there being no God.
Originally posted by jaywillyour delusion extends beyond your belief of god. there is nothing "miserable" about my refusal to believe in the fairy tales that you believe in. you might as well tell me it's a dead end street to not believe in thor.
I don't know how old you are. But I think you should be worried about far more than a mere 12 minutes of your life wasted with your misrable atheist belief. That's a dead end street for sure.
I wouldn't want to want one second on such a delusion as there being no God.
now while on the subject of being miserable, let's examine how miserable you have to be to defend the lies told by ross that reinforce your delusions.
you've spend a considerable amount of time and energy in futility attempting to rationalize away freeman dyson's theism all while ignoring the obvious pattern of strategic lies laid down by hugh ross. ross needed freeman dyson to be an atheist/agonstic. otherwise his entire concocted story would lose all of its seeming authority (and i say seeming authority because that is what it is. even if dyson was a complete self declared atheist, ross's story would still have no actual authority).
so he gambled that his intended audience wouldn't question or attempt to verify any of the whoppers he uttered. and he was right on that point. his intended audience (ie, you) never questioned anything he said nor made any attempts to verify it.
i predict you will continue in this pattern of behavior; not questioning nor verifying information that reinforces your delusions. that's the kind of naive mindset it takes to be really religious, and you certainly are, really religious.
4 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your delusion extends beyond your belief of god. there is nothing "miserable" about my refusal to believe in the fairy tales that you believe in. you might as well tell me it's a dead end street to not believe in thor.
now while on the subject of being miserable, let's examine how miserable you have to be to defend the lies told by ross that r naive mindset it takes to be really religious, and you certainly are, really religious.
your delusion extends beyond your belief of god. there is nothing "miserable" about my refusal to believe in the fairy tales that you believe in. you might as well tell me it's a dead end street to not believe in thor.
It was a mean post. I'd erase it if I could. Meaness is a waste of time. I apologize.
Where are your discussions on the non-existence of Thor ?
Where are your debates of Atheism specifically concerning Thor ?
Post me the link.
now while on the subject of being miserable, let's examine how miserable you have to be to defend the lies told by ross that reinforce your delusions.
you've spend a considerable amount of time and energy in futility attempting to rationalize away freeman dyson's theism all while ignoring the obvious pattern of strategic lies laid down by hugh ross.
His theism certainly is in a gray area. This is not my rationalization so much as his own way of explaining what God is to him.
ross needed freeman dyson to be an atheist/agonstic. otherwise his entire concocted story would lose all of its seeming authority (and i say seeming authority because that is what it is. even if dyson was a complete self declared atheist, ross's story would still have no actual authority).
I certainly do not see Freeman Dyson's beliefs as the central and most crucial point of that talk. And I do not think Ross's ideas absolutely need Dyson's quote. It may help to see that a scientist said that the universe seems to have known that we were coming.
I don't think the omission of this quotation makes the talk "Why the Universe Is the Way It Is" totally collapses without it. Other quotations could have been used. And no quotation could have been used.
Even if Dyson was a Fundamentalist Apologist for Conservative Christianity, which he certainly isn't, such a quotation of the universe seeming to be expecting man's arrival has considerable validity to it.
Genetic Fallacy does not make Dyson's quotation wrong in and of itself.
so he gambled that his intended audience wouldn't question or attempt to verify any of the whoppers he uttered.
He presented the quotation as a confirmation of his ideas. In the process he may have innacurately and even unfairly characterized Dyson's philosophy.
To me this is not a show stopper. I think you exagerrate that without Dyson's sentence referenced the entire thesis of a finely tuned cosmos falls apart.
and he was right on that point. his intended audience (ie, you) never questioned anything he said nor made any attempts to verify it.
Your insistence of portraying Hugh Ross as a scoundrel are not working on this viewer. I wrote the area chapter of Reasons To Believe about the what they knew about Dyson. And I received a response (not from Ross).
Is your opinion of a NOT tuned universe totally hinging on whether or not Hugh Ross is a liar ? It puzzles me that you are still intent on destroying someone's total credibility.
I linked to another video which essentially said much of the same. Much, minus the point of God dealing with the existence of evil by means of the design of the universe. Apart from that Rossian concept, much of the other video with all other voices, was the same.
Are you going to labor to paint Davies as a liar too ?
i predict you will continue in this pattern of behavior; not questioning nor verifying information that reinforces your delusions. that's the kind of naive mindset it takes to be really religious, and you certainly are, really religious.
Now, since you say I do not question, your credibility is in question.
In my research I found out a number of interesting things:
1.) Dyson is a "Christian" NOT Believing, but acting.
2.) Dyson congregates with both Catholic and Protestant and non-denominational groups because of his admiration for great religious music. He does so also because of great religious liturature which he admires.
3.) He doesn't believe God is omniscient.
4.) He doesn't believe God is omnipresent.
5.) He appreaciates social outreach for youths and elderly.
6.) He shuns discussion of his views on God by claiming he is not a theologian.
7.) To him "God" is mostly the collective purpose of human beings.
8.) To him "God" is the collective mental power of the human race.
9.) To him his theism is like that of H.G. Wells.
10.) He doesn't trust the Hebrew Bible because of the "single tribe" issue.
11.) He's not really an attacker of religion. He wants to be magnanimus and somewhat of an abitrator between Science and Religion. He wants to kind of play the role of moderator. He has respect for both and accuses both of waxing arrogant at times.
12.) His views on theology are definitely closer to Pantheism or Panentheism - a God who is the universe rather than is APART from it in a transcendent way.
13.) And last but not least, Hugh Ross may be wrong in his assessment of the man's Atheism or Agnosticism. But it is not easy for some of us to tell definitely about this.
Now my expectations of you: They are to probably continue to characterize those with whom you strongly do not agree, as having moral failure or being dishonest.
I also expect you to fail to convince at least this Forum participant that there is no Fine Tuning of the constants of physics for the allowance of complex life and man to emerge.
And I intend to give this following book a read through - "Why the Universe is the Way It Is" by Hugh Ross. I'm interested in his viewpoint. Answers of apathy and ignorance about this don't hold the same fascination for me.
4 edits
Brought to my attention. Another quotation of Freeman Dyson:
In his book "INFINITE IN ALL DIRECTIONS" he has chapters on How Did Life Begin?, Why is Life So Complicated?, How Will It All END? He ends this section with the expression that "God is neither omniscent nor omnipotent - He Learns". He goes on to say that: " I have not concerned myself seriously with theology. My personal theology is the theology of an Amateur….. I do not make any clear distintion between mind and God" and goes on to say that " God is beyond the scale of our comprehension" and quotes St Paul 1 Cor
A rather obscure Theism - maybe / maybe not a theistic God exists. That's my take.
Would not an Atheist believe in MIND of humans as certainly ? Dyson says in essence "Well, I call this MIND - God." [paraphrase]
VoidSpirit, do you believe in MIND ? Are you a Theist then too ?
Originally posted by jaywillit was a revealing post, but no apology is necessary since i cannot be offended by such things.your delusion extends beyond your belief of god. there is nothing "miserable" about my refusal to believe in the fairy tales that you believe in. you might as well tell me it's a dead end street to not believe in thor.
It was a mean post. I'd erase it if I could. Meaness is a waste of time. I apologize.
Where are your discussions on the non-existence of Thor ?
Where are your debates of Atheism specifically concerning Thor ?
Post me the link.
when the topic comes up, such as this one, i mention thor at times, or i make pick one of the other popular gods. as for your second question, i don't debate specifically for atheism. any argument i make for general non-belief of deities can be applied equally to all the myths.
if you see me referencing mostly biblegod, it is because biblegod is the best known mythical deity around here and the one which is most discussed. when i bring up thor or the other gods, i'm simply placing biblegod in its proper perspective along with the other myths.
His theism certainly is in a gray area. This is not my rationalization so much as his own way of explaining what God is to him.
there is no gray area. he claims to be a christian, and a theist. what type of christian or what his particular views are on theism is of little import in the context of hugh ross's lie.
I certainly do not see Freeman Dyson's beliefs as the central and most crucial point of that talk...
i didn't say it was his central point. i said he needed it to give his argument the appearance of authority.
Even if Dyson was a Fundamentalist Apologist for Conservative Christianity, which he certainly isn't, such a quotation of the universe seeming to be expecting man's arrival has considerable validity to it.
it has no validity to it. that is the reason ross had to invent the lies concerning dyson and concerning research that "proves" the planets were designed to make life on earth possible. in fact, his entire opening cadre of lies was geared towards the goal of giving validity to the idea that the universe was designed to expect mans arrival.
He presented the quotation as a confirmation of his ideas. In the process he may have innacurately and even unfairly characterized Dyson's philosophy.
yes. and hawkin's philosophy. and information about extrasolar planets. and research on solar planets. and we're only 3 minutes in. he presented these lies as confirmation of his ideas.
To me this is not a show stopper. I think you exagerrate that without Dyson's sentence referenced the entire thesis of a finely tuned cosmos falls apart.
nevertheless, it fell apart in the opening 3 minutes.
Your insistence of portraying Hugh Ross as a scoundrel are not working on this viewer.
i know, i made this observation days ago. if the evidence i already presented is not enough to convince you (which it isn't obviously), then no amount of revelation of hugh ross's despicable character and distortions will convince you.
I wrote the area chapter of Reasons To Believe about the what they knew about Dyson. And I received a response (not from Ross).
i hope they gave you better material to apologize for ross's lies than what you've been using so far.
Is your opinion of a NOT tuned universe totally hinging on whether or not Hugh Ross is a liar ? It puzzles me that you are still intent on destroying someone's total credibility.
my opinion of the universe has nothing to do with ross. i expose him as a liar with the goal of preventing others from believing his nonsense and perhaps having them form a habit of checking every claim made by such unscrupulous characters.
I linked to another video which essentially said much of the same. Much, minus the point of God dealing with the existence of evil by means of the design of the universe. Apart from that Rossian concept, much of the other video with all other voices, was the same.
Are you going to labor to paint Davies as a liar too ?
i don't know. did davies call dyson an atheist? did davies claim there is research that proves the planets were designed to make life on earth possible? did davies imply that stephen hawkins is talking about an intelligent designer? did davies make the claim that all the extra-solar planets we've discovered are categorically unique from those in our solar system?
if he made such claims, i'll have to see the context in which he made them before affirming his intention.
Now, since you say I do not question, your credibility is in question.
In my research I found out a number of interesting things:
1.) Dyson is a "Christian" NOT Believing, but acting.
2.) Dyson congregates with both Catholic and Protestant and non-denominational groups because of his admiration for great religious music. He does so also because of great religious liturature which he admires.
3.) He doesn't believe God is omniscient.
4.) He doesn't believe God is omnipresent.
5.) He appreaciates social outreach for youths and elderly.
6.) He shuns discussion of his views on God by claiming he is not a theologian.
7.) To him "God" is mostly the collective purpose of human beings.
8.) To him "God" is the collective mental power of the human race.
9.) To him his theism is like that of H.G. Wells.
10.) He doesn't trust the Hebrew Bible because of the "single tribe" issue.
11.) He's not really an attacker of religion. He wants to be magnanimus and somewhat of an abitrator between Science and Religion. He wants to kind of play the role of moderator. He has respect for both and accuses both of waxing arrogant at times.
12.) His views on theology are definitely closer to Pantheism or Panentheism - a God who is the universe rather than is APART from it in a transcendent way.
13.) And last but not least, Hugh Ross may be wrong in his assessment of the man's Atheism or Agnosticism. But it is not easy for some of us to tell definitely about this.
great, it seems your research has confirmed ross a liar.
Now my expectations of you: They are to probably continue to characterize those with whom you strongly do not agree, as having moral failure or being dishonest.
oh no, not at all. liars like ross have a moral failure of being dishonest. i have no problem with people disagreeing with me. i have disagreed with atheists on these forums (googlefudge) and general theists (fmf). i've never called either one of them a liar. i also don't recall having called you a liar (though it got a little dicey on this topic). i have called rj a liar, and i won't retract that.
as anyone can see from my posting record, i call it as i see it, no matter what your beliefs or opinions.
I also expect you to fail to convince at least this Forum participant that there is no Fine Tuning of the constants of physics for the allowance of complex life and man to emerge.
i've already used my strongest argument against this; fine tuning can be seen both ways. that the universe is fine tuned to allow life to exist or that life is fine tuned to allow existing in the universe. i think there is more evidence for the latter for various reasons i've already outlined in that discussion. if that hasn't convinced you, i have nothing else to add.
And I intend to give this following book a read through - "Why the Universe is the Way It Is" by Hugh Ross. I'm interested in his viewpoint. Answers of apathy and ignorance about this don't hold the same fascination for me.
that's fine. i won't read or listen to anything else from ross as i prefer content from people with integrity.
4 edits
i've already used my strongest argument against this; fine tuning can be seen both ways. that the universe is fine tuned to allow life to exist or that life is fine tuned to allow existing in the universe. i think there is more evidence for the latter for various reasons i've already outlined in that discussion. if that hasn't convinced you, i have nothing else to add.
No one is bludgeoned to accept an intelligent Creator. Not only do I believe the universe is finely tuned. The evidence of it is also just enough for you to not accept God if you really don't want to.
This is totally fascinating to me. The Creator does not coerce or force anyone. If you really don't want to see a Creator's intelligent mind behind creation, you can choose another rationale.
People like you really have one reply - "You have not yet FORCED me to believe in anything." That's right. Your will is still your own sovereign will. You may always decide to grasp another more desirable explanation.
As for me, I see a big Mind in this tuning. And I am beginning to see something of Ross's explanations that even our position in the galaxy and other factors seemed deliberately calibrated that man can view the whole thing.
I have been told that there is no where else in the solar system where a perfect eclipse of one astronomical body as it fits perfectly into the shape of another, would happen. Only on the earth where human beings are, can this kind of phenomenon be witnessed.
I am beginning to see that a slightly different position in the Milky Way galaxy would render our view obscured by either the light of too many suns or the interveaning stuff of outer space.
The Creator not only tuned the cosmos for life. The Creator calibrated the timing and placing of human beings to be able to get a panoramic view of the whole universe and our place in it.
He is way, way, way, WAY ahead of us.
This Mind has also calibrated the evidence so that if you of your free will really don't want the Creator, He gives you your own self chosen back door out. You have chosen to slip out that back door and interpret the evidence to support your much prefered Creator-LESS world.
I think the true truth though, lies with an intelligent Creator.
Originally posted by jaywill"Would not an Atheist believe in MIND of humans as certainly ?"
Brought to my attention. Another quotation of Freeman Dyson:
[quote] In his book "INFINITE IN ALL DIRECTIONS" he has chapters on How Did Life Begin?, Why is Life So Complicated?, How Will It All END? He ends this section with the expression that [b] "God is neither omniscent nor omnipotent - He Learns". He goes on to say that: " I have not co ...[text shortened]... [paraphrase]
VoidSpirit, do you believe in MIND ? Are you a Theist then too ?
i don't know. you would have to ask that atheist.
" VoidSpirit, do you believe in MIND ? Are you a Theist then too ?"
i have no beliefs.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillyou mean the evidence is lacking enough to not accept god. it's not a matter of what i want.
[quote] i've already used my strongest argument against this; fine tuning can be seen both ways. that the universe is fine tuned to allow life to exist or that life is fine tuned to allow existing in the universe. i think there is more evidence for the latter for various reasons i've already outlined in that discussion. if that hasn't convinced you, i have n d. The evidence of it is also just enough for you to not accept God if you really don't want to.
This is totally fascinating to me. The Creator does not coerce or force anyone. If you really don't want to see a Creator's intelligent mind behind creation, you can choose another rationale.
it is fascinating for me as well. but if you are going to make the claim that the creator doesn't coerce or force anyone, i would have to agree with you as this quality is not of the god of the bible you are describing.
the only rational i choose is that of reason. no creator has stepped forth and claimed responsibility, so i'll just have to keep searching and keeping up with the research of other people who's job it is to search.
People like you really have one reply - "You have not yet FORCED me to believe in anything." That's right. Your will is still your own sovereign will. You may always decide to grasp another more desirable explanation.
no, that's not the correct reply from people like me. the correct reply from people like me is that you have not yet convinced me to accept your ideas.
As for me, I see a big Mind in this tuning. And I am beginning to see something of Ross's explanations that even our position in the galaxy and other factors seemed deliberately calibrated that man can view the whole thing.
I have been told that there is no where else in the solar system where a perfect eclipse of one astronomical body as it fits perfectly into the shape of another, would happen. Only on the earth where human beings are, can this kind of phenomenon be witnessed.
I am beginning to see that a slightly different position in the Milky Way galaxy would render our view obscured by either the light of too many suns or the interveaning stuff of outer space.
The Creator not only tuned the cosmos for life. The Creator calibrated the timing and placing of human beings to be able to get a panoramic view of the whole universe and our place in it.
He is way, way, way, WAY ahead of us.
nah, i think a view from one of the moons of saturn would be much prettier.
the view from earth is actually boring. all we have is one dead moon and one yellow sun. poo.
This Mind has also calibrated the evidence so that if you of your free will really don't want the Creator, He gives you your own self chosen back door out. You have chosen to slip out that back door and interpret the evidence to support your much prefered Creator-LESS world.
oh? how did you figure this part out?
I think the true truth though, lies with an intelligent Creator.
it may. there is just not enough evidence for me to accept it.
Originally posted by jaywillAs VoidSpirit has pointed out with regards to Ross, don't believe everything you are told, especially by people with a religious agenda. Check your facts before you believe them, and just as importantly, check your facts before you try to pass them on as fact - or you will just end up looking like a fool.
I have been told that there is no where else in the solar system where a perfect eclipse of one astronomical body as it fits perfectly into the shape of another, would happen. Only on the earth where human beings are, can this kind of phenomenon be witnessed.
Not only do we not typically experience a perfect eclipse, but it varies quite considerably because the distance between the earth and the moon is not constant.
But far more important, is that you are taking the existence of a coincidence as evidence of specialty. This is a common error. You look at your watch and the pattern of numbers jumps out at you. You conclude it is 'special' and that God wanted you to see those numbers. In reality there are so many numbers that would 'jump out' at you that if you look at your watch several times a day, chances are you will see one such pattern at least once a day.
You only thought your observation was special because it happened to you and you didn't realize how many others were out there.
The same applies to astronomical phenomena. You see something interesting and take it to be special, when in reality there are many many interesting things to see, and if you looked, you would see them quite regularly (from any planet). You only thought your observation was special because it happened to you and you didn't realize how many others were out there. If I point out a unique fact about observations from Jupiter, will you accept that Jupiter was 'designed for man'? No, you will find some excuse.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you mean the evidence is lacking enough to not accept god. it's not a matter of what i want.This is totally fascinating to me. The Creator does not coerce or force anyone. If you really don't want to see a Creator's intelligent mind behind creation, you can choose another rationale.
it is fascinating for me as well. but if you ...[text shortened]... Creator.[/quote]
it may. there is just not enough evidence for me to accept it.
the only rational i choose is that of reason. no creator has stepped forth and claimed responsibility, so i'll just have to keep searching and keeping up with the research of other people who's job it is to search.
Sure God has stepped forth and claimed responsibility.
Maybe you expected the Bible to have wings and float down from heaven. Apparently it is written in human language, has pages like any other book. Its bound between two covers like any other book.
Perhaps God's way of entering into man's culture to speak to man doesn't meet your expectations of how a God would step forward and claim responsibility.
But I don't have that problem anymore. When Jesus demonstrated control over the storm, control over disease, control over the wind and waves, control over death itself, it added great credence to the testimony of His Father, that He was responsible for the creation.
So God has taken responsibility. You don't like the One who claimed responsibility. That taints your belief or rather fuels your disbelief.
Originally posted by jaywillThat is not true at all. Any non-Christian would immediately dismiss those claims as untrue. Therefore it is clear that you already believed Jesus' claims (and the Bibles claims) prior to reading about those feats of magic. They may have helped solidify it for you but I very much doubt it.
But I don't have that problem anymore. When Jesus demonstrated control over the storm, control over disease, control over the wind and waves, control over death itself, it added great credence to the testimony of His Father, that He was responsible for the creation.
Originally posted by jaywillreally? where? in the oracles of zoroaster? in the koran? in the vedas? in the hebrew bible? in the roman bible? please tell me you're not referring to one of those fables.the only rational i choose is that of reason. no creator has stepped forth and claimed responsibility, so i'll just have to keep searching and keeping up with the research of other people who's job it is to search.
Sure God has stepped forth and claimed responsibility.
Maybe you expected the Bible to have wings and float down from heaven.
it would help.
Apparently it is written in human language, has pages like any other book. Its bound between two covers like any other book.
yup. just like every other piece of human literature.
Perhaps God's way of entering into man's culture to speak to man doesn't meet your expectations of how a God would step forward and claim responsibility.
i haven't seen a god enter into man's culture, so i couldn't say if it meets my expectations.
But I don't have that problem anymore. When Jesus demonstrated control over the storm, control over disease, control over the wind and waves, control over death itself, it added great credence to the testimony of His Father, that He was responsible for the creation.
all this demonstrates is that you have picked one of the human myths to believe. or maybe it was picked for you and you were raised to believe in that nonsense. this is a more likely explanation.
So God has taken responsibility. You don't like the One who claimed responsibility. That taints your belief or rather fuels your disbelief.
no he hasn't. all we have are flawed myths spawned in the twisted imaginations of humans that portray various gods in a ridiculous and absurd fashions. that you've picked one of these ridiculous mythical gods to worship as your personal savior is irrelevant. the fact remains that no god has claimed responsibility for creation.
7 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadSome rather scattered comments on previous criticisms of Hugh Ross.
As VoidSpirit has pointed out with regards to Ross, don't believe everything you are told, especially by people with a religious agenda. Check your facts before you believe them, and just as importantly, check your facts before you try to pass them on as fact - or you will just end up looking like a fool.
Not only do we not typically experience a perfe er, will you accept that Jupiter was 'designed for man'? No, you will find some excuse.
As VoidSpirit has pointed out with regards to Ross, don't believe everything you are told, especially by people with a religious agenda. Check your facts before you believe them, and just as importantly, check your facts before you try to pass them on as fact - or you will just end up looking like a fool.
I don't mind if you consider me to look like a fool.
Ross's contention is about the Fine Tuning of the universe for man's existence. "The Anthropic Principle" was not a phrase invented by religious Creationists. Some thoughtful and honest scientists noticed this all too percular coincidence of various constants being just right for the formation of rocky planets and the life occuring on them. So far we have a sample size of exactly one - the earth.
Ross is just taking this Anthropic Principle which he did not invent, to more and more extensive analysis. He is predictng that such analogies will be on the encrease in the future.
Maybe his evaluation of a certain Freeman Dyson is faulty. No need to dismiss everything else written by the man VoidSpirit style.
Not only do we not typically experience a perfect eclipse, but it varies quite considerably because the distance between the earth and the moon is not constant.
But far more important, is that you are taking the existence of a coincidence as evidence of specialty. This is a common error. You look at your watch and the pattern of numbers jumps out at you. You conclude it is 'special' and that God wanted you to see those numbers. In reality there are so many numbers that would 'jump out' at you that if you look at your watch several times a day, chances are you will see one such pattern at least once a day.
I think science is onto something to notice what unique properties of an eclipsis are noticable from earth. Jumping to exaggerated extreme in a superstitious way is just that.
Ross's RTB Creation Model "lists 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to make physical life possible." " This list is related to the fine-tuning for life in the universe as a whole.
You would respond with 140 yawns and 140 "So Whats?"
The RTB Creation Model describes " 402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to make advanced life possible. This list also explains in each case how the slight increase or decrease in the value of the characteristic would destroy the possibilty for advanced life's existence." This breakdown he relates to the fine-tuning for Intelligent physical life.
Thirdly, RTB's Creation Model identifies 922 characteristic of a galaxy and of a planetary system that make physical life possible and gives estimates of the probability that a galaxy and planetary system would manifest such characteristics. This list is broken down into the fine-tuning requirement for various kinds of life." [/i] This list is related to probability estimates for the features required by various life forms.
Then Dr. Ross's RTB Model goes on to estimate on different size scales for the features required for advanced life. The model presents " a breakdown of 922 characteristics as they arise, separately, from galaxy cluster, galaxy, planetary system, planet, planet's syrface, and planets other life."
My generation, the Star Trek, Star Wars generation, imagines that there are many many worlds out there peopled with various intelligent species. And someday we will be, like Star Trek, just a wide range neighborhood of fellow beings.
Maybe not. Ross argues that the one example of planet, sun, solar system, galaxy are finely tuned for our existence. Perhaps we simply do not realize how special the cosmos is for our human existence.
I want to explore that premise. And once again, "The Anthropic Principle" was a concept not invented by Christians. It was coined by secularists.
Habitat for Humanity
In 1961 Princeton physicist Robert Dicke noted that the universe couldn't contail physical life if any one of several physical constants differed in value by even a slight amount.
[Reference - Robert H. Dicke, "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle," Nature 192 (November 4, 961): pages 440-441]
His discovery led to the development of the anthropic principle - the conclusion that the universe, Milky Way Galaxy, solar system, and Earth are exquisitly fine-tuned so that human life can exist and flourish.
Elsewhere in More Than A Theory Ross writes -
A scientific liturature search completed thirty months later found 676 different characteristics in which fine tuning was required to allow simple life to exist for more than three billion years on one body. The combined fine-tuning degree implied that the probabilit of finding such a body (without invoking divine intervention) is one chance in [10 to the 556th power]
He is speaking about a liturature seach conducted 30 months after one previous search articles published in 2006 which uncovered 322 different characteristics for which fine-tuning was needed for simple life to exist on a planet or moon for three billion years.
Surprisingly, Ross is a little critical of the Intelligent Design Movement. I don't read Ross as without objectivity.
He devotes two pages to a discussion of "The Fallacies of the Gaps" where he addresses the charge of "God of the Gaps" types of arguments and gaps in general. I will not refer to this now except to quote a little:
Ironically, a reasonable case could be made that scientists sometimes engage in similarly flawed logic. They commit what could be called the "nature of the gaps" fallacy. Some researchers presume that an unknown force or phenomenon of nature must fill all gaps in human knowledge and understanding
In other words, secular scientist can also appeal to "nature of the gaps" as readily as a "God of the gaps" could be spotted by consumate naturalists.
Many theoreticians have appealed to the existence of unknown laws, principles, constants, dimensions, or hypothetical variations in the constants and laws of physics to explain a gap and dissolve supposed evidence for supernatural intervention. Stuart Kauffman and other scientists at the Santa Fe Institute, for example, without any observational support or physical evidence, appeal to a hypothetical "fourth law of thermodynamcics." They say that this imaginative law spontaneously produced a high degree of order, complexity, and information content where none existed. That's how they explain the "natural," but sudden, and very early appearance of life on earth despute the lack of both a primordial soup and a supply of prebiotics (building blocks of life molecules ..."
None theistic cosmologists have made "ah hoc" appeals to hypothetical new laws or constants of physics in order to avoid the implications of fine tuning or a singularity source of the universe.
The most productive approach is to test what happens as scientists gain more knowledge and understanding. If a certain gap becomes narrower and less problematic from a naturalistic perspective as data accumulate, then that natural explanation for the gap appears appropriate. However, if the gap becomes wider and more problematic as scientists learn more, then a supernatural explanation may make better sense.
The entire ensemble of gaps can be exploited to evaluate and contrast competing creation / evolution models as:
Which interpretation ore model contains the fewest gaps?
Which model(s) most accurately predict(s) where as-yet-undiscovered gaps will be observed?
Which model(s) most accurately forecast(s) what scientists will discover as they use new data and technlogy to explore the gaps?
Which model is the least contrived and most straightforward in explaining both the known and the unknowns ?
Researchers must make the case for their models based on factual evidence - what is known, not what's unknown. The measure of a model's success should be how well it explains existing data and predicts what will be discovered as researchers continue to explore current gaps in knowledge ... Astronomers, biochemists, paleontologists, and anthropologists, among others, can take advantage of such apparent chasms in scientific understanding to direct their efforts in trying to determine which explanations best account for certain phenomena relevant to the origin and history of the universe, life, and human beings. [More Than A Theory, Hugh Ross, BakerBooks, pgs. 45,46]
You only thought your observation was special because it happened to you and you didn't realize how many others were out there.
No. I am interested in the case calculated at the uniqueness of the phenomenon. No one has stood on these other planets.
Apparently, the optics have been calculated. Admittedly, I did not do this labor.
The same applies to astronomical phenomena. You see something interesting and take it to be special, when in reality there are many many interesting things to see, and if you looked, you would see them quite regularly (from any planet).
The Atheistic view of the universe is being put to the test. Get use to it.
There are, no pun intended, reasons to believe, that God created our cosmos quite intentionally and that we are not meanignless lucky accidents.
It would be a mistake for you to assume only theists have noticed.
[b]Is Physics Watching Over Us?" - Philip Ball http://www.nature.com/nsu/020812/020812-2.html
[b]Disturbing Implications of ...