5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Is one of your "brute facts" that nothing existed, I mean no energy, no space, no matter, no time, and presto whamo ! Brute style, chance caused the universe to pop into existence ?
No.
God, by definition that most philosophers or theologians would understand is eternal, self existing and has the power of being in Himself.
So essen ...[text shortened]... 'from' cannot work with 'true nothingness'. It is just incoherent to talk of 'true nothingness'.[/b]
No, I have no idea how the universe came into existence or whether or not it did come into existence.
Yes. You don't KNOW. And I don't KNOW either. Neither one of us was there. I share with you that we do not KNOW how the universe came into existence.
I also don't KNOW that the man who I call "dad" is really my father.
Now I trust what he has told me.
And I trust what my mother has told me.
Could they be mistaken? Yes.
Could they be lying ? Yea, that's possible too.
Now you say "Don't quote the Bible to me."
Okay, I quote to ME and to some others then. I trust - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Not because the words could not be scribbled on any piece of random paper or parchment lying around. I trust it considering the many other things indicating the character of this Person the rest of the Bible speaks of. It adds up that He also is responsible for the creation.
It is not a trust in a vacuum. It is trust with reasons to believe from many other things concerning Him and His book. And it is reasonable for me to trust based on what I know about nature and what scientists tell us.
sonship:
Is one of your "brute facts" that nothing existed, I mean no energy, no space, no matter, no time, and presto whamo ! Brute style, chance caused the universe to pop into existence ?
No.
I think you answered my question !
sonship:
God, by definition that most philosophers or theologians would understand is eternal, self existing and has the power of being in Himself.
So essentially a brute fact. Do you consider such a brute fact to be 'pure chance' or do you mean something else by the phrase 'pure chance'?
I think you answered my question. I think I am satisfied that you do not think chance CAUSED the universe to come into being. I think you committed to a viewpoint.
Chance did not from absolutely nothing cause the universe to exist.
I agree.
Now I am confused. What do you mean by 'chance'? To me, it means the exact opposite of causation. How can chance be a causal agent? It just doesn't make sense.
I agree. Chance could not be the causual agent that caused the universe to come into existence from nothing.
You may require further clarification from me. But I think I have an answer from you on what I asked.
You said he was eternal. Surely this means either an infinite chain of causation, or you don't mean 'infinite' when you say 'eternal' or God was once static and then by pure chance, started to change. Or you are using terminology in ways I do not understand, please clarify.
Yes,either. And I told you which of the either it was.
God is the uncaused Cause. If you want it spoken like that.
[quote]
Only a basic understanding. But I am pretty sure that it is not yet known whether or not the universe is deterministic.
I think my inquiry has been answered.
At this time I don't need to dive too deeply into "determinism".
You do not believe that God as a Creator can be replaced by chance as the creator.
I said nothing of true nothingness. You talked of creating, you said nothing about 'true nothingness', nor what that entails. A causative agent by definition is not 'true nothingness' and the word 'from' cannot work with 'true nothingness'. It is just incoherent to talk of 'true nothingness'.
Nothing except an uncreated, uncaused, eternal, ever existing, transcendent and enormously powerful Being with Personhood who by act of WILL could cause everything ELSE (ie. time, space, matter, energy, motion, mesons, gluons, Higgs particles, atoms, quarks, Bangs - Big and Small - singularities, irregularities, quantum fields, virtual particles, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, protons, crotons, angels, heavens, heaven, lives, earth, galaxies, gases, plasmas, black holes, minds and all things other than God Himself that have being, to have being.
Close you eyes for a minute while I quote the book of Romans for other readers -
" ... God in whom he [Abraham] believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being." (Romans 4:17)
Back to the top:
No, I have no idea how the universe came into existence or whether or not it did come into existence.
Copy that except I don't believe the universe is eternally always was. How about some of us put our faith and trust that the One who created it can be trusted to tell us the truth ?
We don't KNOW for sure. How about "This looks reasonable. I believe this." ?
Any damage done ?
How about an unusual Man walks the earth, speaking about God as His Father and commands the storm, stills the waters, heals the sick, raises the dead, multiplies the loaf of bread, and Himself cannot be kept in the tomb after torture, execution and death ?
Maybe not only His deeds I might take note of but His incredible words as well.
I put revelation and the discoveries of science to take up a position on something I have to admit I did not witness personally. I don't call that superstition. I am selective on what I think is reasonable. And I do not intend to throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to proclamations of revelation.
Originally posted by sonshipI think we both knew that already. I don't know why you are spending so much time on it. The point of the thread is that you claim that there is a logical argument not dependant on your trust, that suggests the universe was specially designed - or something along those lines.
Okay, I quote to ME and to some others then. I [b]trust - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
I think you answered my question !
So do I. I am not yet certain my answer means what you think it means.
I think you answered my question. I think I am satisfied that you do not think chance CAUSED the universe to come into being. I think you [b]committed to a viewpoint.[/b]
What I actually said I think, was that your question was incoherent.
I agree. Chance could not be the causual agent that caused the universe to come into existence from nothing.
Note also that I do not believe the universe came from nothing via a causal agent - so don't make the mistake of turing this into a binary situation when it isn't.
twhitehead
You said he was eternal. Surely this means either an infinite chain of causation, or you don't mean 'infinite' when you say 'eternal' or God was once static and then by pure chance, started to change. Or you are using terminology in ways I do not understand, please clarify.
Yes,either. And I told you which of the either it was.
God is the uncaused Cause. If you want it spoken like that.
I don't get it. Which either did you pick?
At this time I don't need to dive too deeply into "determinism".
I think we should go a little way.
If I throw a die and it comes up 6. Is it possible that there was no cause for this? ie no reason why it was 6 and not 5? What is your view? Are you a determinist?
You do not believe that God as a Creator can be replaced by chance as the creator.
God as a creator vs chance as a creator never crossed my mind until you brought it up. As I say above, chance as a creator seems to me to be incoherent. This doesn't of course mean I think God is a creator.
Nothing except an uncreated, uncaused, eternal, ever existing, transcendent and enormously powerful Being with Personhood who by act of WILL could cause everything ELSE
Easy to say, but I am afraid you haven't given one shred of logic that leads to that conclusion.
Any damage done ?
My eyes were closed.
How about an unusual Man walks the earth, speaking about God as His Father and commands the storm, stills the waters, heals the sick, raises the dead, multiplies the loaf of bread, and Himself cannot be kept in the tomb after torture, execution and death ?
What does this have to do with the topic of the thread? The question is not whether you believe in God and why, the question is whether the starting conditions of the universe being fine tuned for us to exist, means anything other than 'we exist'.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you answered my question !
So do I. I am not yet certain my answer means what you think it means.
I think you answered my question. I think I am satisfied that you do not think chance CAUSED the universe to come into being. I think you [b]committed to a viewpoint.[/b]
I agree. Chance could not be the causual agent that caus ...[text shortened]... nditions of the universe being fine tuned for us to exist, means anything other than 'we exist'.
I think we both knew that already. I don't know why you are spending so much time on it. The point of the thread is that you claim that there is a logical argument not dependant on your trust, that suggests the universe was specially designed - or something along those lines.
I think you are trying to force something to be complex which should be rather simple.
A the finely tuned constants and quantities are reasonable evidence of God's involvement in creation. I think you wish to convolute the matter beyond what is necessary.
What I actually said I think, was that your question was incoherent.
So you have not answered. You answered but you didn't answer.
I am not going to waste time being drawn into your maze of convolution.
Unless you want to explain instead of beckoning me to explain your thoughts, I'll just stop trying to understand you.
Note also that I do not believe the universe came from nothing via a causal agent - so don't make the mistake of turing this into a binary situation when it isn't.
I don't think I made any mistake.
I think that your example of the die toss and once landing has a probability of 1 is a signal that your logic just needlessly esoteric.
I think an interesting test would be to ask googlefudge or sonhouse or wolfgang59 or one of the other atheists if they can (without your coaching) explain what you want to say.
I am not really sure that you yourself understand what you are writing. Sorry.
If I throw a die and it comes up 6. Is it possible that there was no cause for this? ie no reason why it was 6 and not 5? What is your view? Are you a determinist?
I am not sure what you are getting at.
There is a cause for it to come up ANY number. The causes of which, when we do not really know, we discribe as chance.
I think that if a very delicately invented machine, working in a vacuum could assure that the die is tossed in exactly the same speed, force, angle, momentum, and all other things possibly controlled, it would come up 6 again.
That kind of armature or mechanism to re-toss the die may be beyond our level of technology. But because we cannot exactly control the flow or air the exact same momentum, etc. etc. the unknown factors which made it come up a certain number we explain as "chance."
Unexpected encounters in coin tosses can be described by us as the results of chance.
God as a creator vs chance as a creator never crossed my mind until you brought it up. As I say above, chance as a creator seems to me to be incoherent. This doesn't of course mean I think God is a creator.
And you will hold very close to the vest what you think is the creator so, I think I'll move on.
Easy to say, but I am afraid you haven't given one shred of logic that leads to that conclusion.
And I think that is your standard answer to some of us along with obfuscating and convoluted talk which is suppose to sound highly intelligent.
Take it. Be happy.
I'll take Fine Tuning as evidence of an Intelligent Creator.
Too many people who are not evangelical Christians seem to not have difficulty with the idea as the show you put up here.
Originally posted by sonshipThen give a good logical argument for why they are reasonable evidence instead of trying to sidetrack the discussion into trust and your beliefs etc.
I think you are trying to force something to be complex which should be rather simple.
A the finely tuned constants and quantities are reasonable evidence of God's involvement in creation. I think you wish to convolute the matter beyond what is necessary.
So you have not answered. You answered but you didn't answer.
I cannot answer, the question is incoherent.
I am not going to waste time being drawn into your maze of convolution.
No convolution at all. I simply don't think it makes sense to call 'chance' a cause. Maybe its just the phrasing. Maybe if you asked whether the universe came about by chance, then my answer is 'I don't know'.
I certainly do not think the universe came from nothing which seems to be what you think is the only viable alternative to 'God did it'. I on the other hand think there are many viable alternatives.
I think that your example of the die toss and once landing has a probability of 1 is a signal that your logic just needlessly esoteric.
Its not esoteric, its a basic fact of probability theory - one that you seem to be struggling with.
I think an interesting test would be to ask googlefudge or sonhouse or wolfgang59 or one of the other atheists if they can (without your coaching) explain what you want to say.
I think another poster already said that bit about probability before I did.
If I throw a die and it comes up 6. Is it possible that there was no cause for this? ie no reason why it was 6 and not 5? What is your view? Are you a determinist?
I am not sure what you are getting at.
They are not difficult questions.
1. If I throw a die and it comes up 6. Is it possible that there was no cause for this?
This is a yes/no question. Or do you honestly not understand this question?
2. What is your view?
if you say no to 1, then give more detail if possible.
3. Are you a determinist?
A yes/no question.
By 'determinist' I mean do you believe that everything that happens must have a cause. ie randomness / chance do not exist.
I think that if a very delicately invented machine, working in a vacuum could assure that the die is tossed in exactly the same speed, force, angle, momentum, and all other things possibly controlled, it would come up 6 again.
So are you saying you think all the rules of physics are deterministic and exact? ie for any given set of starting conditions you always get the same outcome? Or is this only for macro objects like the die?
Does this apply to humans to? ie given the exact same starting conditions will I always make the same choices?
And you will hold very close to the vest what you think is the creator so, I think I'll move on.
No, not at all. I am very open and honest with my opinions and never hold back when asked. I do not know how the universe started or if it started. I do not know if there was a creator or wasn't. I do not think there was an intelligent creator.
And I think that is your standard answer to some of us along with obfuscating and convoluted talk which is suppose to sound highly intelligent.
Its a perfectly good standard answer to people who make claims without substantiating them. Especially people who think that repeating the claim over and over makes it more true.
I'll take Fine Tuning as evidence of an Intelligent Creator.
You may, but don't fool yourself into thinking you got there via valid logic.
Too many people who are not evangelical Christians seem to not have difficulty with the idea as the show you put up here.
Well if they don't have difficulty with it, maybe they can explain their reasoning. You quoted a lot of people not having difficulty, but oddly enough you didn't quote a single person making a logical argument that supports your claim. As I said before, if such a logical argument had ever been presented it would either:
a) have been debunked.
b) have been accepted by most logical people and entered into science, taught in schools, and got someone a Nobel prize.
Logic unlike faith, can be explained to someone else, and is convincing when valid. Of course there are those like you who refuse to accept logical arguments.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
Then give a good logical argument for why they are reasonable evidence instead of trying to sidetrack the discussion into trust and your beliefs etc.
[b]So you have not answered. You answered but you didn't answer.
I cannot answer, the question is incoherent.
I am not going to waste time being drawn into your maze of convolution.
No c ...[text shortened]... onvincing when valid. Of course there are those like you who refuse to accept logical arguments.[/b]
Its a perfectly good standard answer to people who make claims without substantiating them. Especially people who think that repeating the claim over and over makes it more true.
Yea. Well I spent a penny for your thoughts on this. And frankly I think I want my penny back.
So the feeling is 100% mutual. Nothing new in it though since I came to this board around 2006 or 7 or something.
I think an interesting test would be to ask googlefudge or sonhouse or wolfgang59 or one of the other atheists if they can (without your coaching) explain what you want to say.
I have not read all that's been written here because you people write awful long posts and I have the attention span of a young puppy, but what I think twhitehead is saying is this:
Throw a die 10000 times. Note all the numbers that you got. After throw number 10000, look at that sequence of numbers. Now ask yourself, what were the odds that that sequence would come up? I think you'll agree that the chance of that is astronomically small (I believe the chance is 1/6^10000, but correct me if I'm wrong).
Hence, getting that sequence, whatever the sequence is, is according to your logic impossible. There had to be an intelligence present to make sure that that sequence would come up. No matter what the sequence is.
Originally posted by Great King RatIf he were saying that, then I doubt sonship would have an argument.
[b]I think an interesting test would be to ask googlefudge or sonhouse or wolfgang59 or one of the other atheists if they can (without your coaching) explain what you want to say.
I have not read all that's been written here because you people write awful long posts and I have the attention span of a young puppy, but what I think twhitehead is ...[text shortened]... elligence present to make sure that that sequence would come up. No matter what the sequence is.[/b]
Of course, the same is true for throwing a die one time. Think of the billions of atoms and molecules that had to be in a certain position to have that number come up. Actually, that chance is already so ridiculously small that the difference between getting a sequence of 1 number and getting a sequence of 10000 numbers is insignificant.
The universe is a practical impossibility.
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatIt is not simply the universe which is the surprise. It is a life permitting one as opposed to a far more probable life prohibiting one.
Of course, the same is true for throwing a die one time. Think of the billions of atoms and molecules that had to be in a certain position to have that number come up. Actually, that chance is already so ridiculously small that the difference between getting a sequence of 1 number and getting a sequence of 10000 numbers is insignificant.
The universe is a practical impossibility.
Fine Tuning Parameters of our universe making it a life permitting one:
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
From Rich Deem at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
3 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatSo the environmentalists should just relax ? It is no big deal if every river is poisoned, every tree is cut down, the ozone layer is destroyed and skin cancer eats up everyone at least with light colored skin ?
That's all very nice and it would be a big deal if the existence of life in the universe were of vital importance, but it isn't.
So insect killing chemicals in the fruit, radioactivity in the fish, genetically engineered vegetables whose side effects we really have no idea of should not bother us ?
So atomic wars wiping out life on the planet should not be a concern because " the existence of life in the universe" is of no "vital importance" ?
Boy I know some Republicans who would love you !
Originally posted by sonshipDon't drag us Republicans down by associating us with the ideas of Great King Rat.
So the environmentalists should just relax ? It is no big deal if every river is poisoned, every tree is cut down, the ozone layer is destroyed and skin cancer eats up everyone at least with light colored skin ?
So insect killing chemicals in the fruit, radioactivity in the fish, genetically engineered vegetables whose side effects we really have no ide ...[text shortened]... is of no "vital importance" ?
Boy I know some Republicans who would love you ![/b]