Looks like a blizzard of quotes about what is not in dispute, so as to provide cover and distraction from answering the basic questions that have been asked. Not unexpected, but still disappointing.
Upvote
0
A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible
- Thread starter xianghua
- Start date
stevevw
inquisitive
I don’t understand what you mean. It is the only argument for fine tuning that can be supported logically. Because we cannot verify a creative agent directly the only way to provide any support is through arguments based on supposition and indirect evidence like how support is given for a multiverse and other ideas that prove hard to verify directly.
I thought I had already explained why it is more reasonable especially as opposed to magic. For example, despite saying the probabilities for fine tuning have not been establish I disagree, and a logical case can be made. Many academics propose a creative agent as one of the options for fine tuning along with a multiverse (support already posted). Why would they do this if it was not a reasonable thing to do. The evidence I posted showing belief in a creative agent is natural even form birth in looking for agency behind things points to belief being more than just imagination. A creative agent behind things is based on ID and and can use the processes of nature.
This is compared to magic which people are not born to believe in or see that magic is behind the way existence and life has come about. As apposed to a creative agent using natural processes and a mind to influence things magic only Because there is a case for unlikely odds of all the physical parameters having specific values this points to a mind behind things and magic does not give that same inference.
The argument that a creative agent is responsible for fine tuning is based on supposition. If we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe, then we should expect that this universe would have evidences of design. The fine-tuning of various physical constants is consistent with a creative agent’s design. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that a creative agent exists.
Does the Fine-Tuning Argument Work? | HuffPost
If that logic is used then the fact that life was produced contradicts that claim and shows that the universe despite its appearance of being hostile to life is conducive for life. The right conditions for life were there at the very instant the universe was created to enable the right type of stars that could produce the right elements for life. Therefore it supports the hypothesis.
There is additional support already posted on another post on this thread showing how the physical parameters could have ended up with other values that were not suitable for life. So, there is some support for specific fine tuning which supports a creative agent hypothesis. For example
"One can indeed perform physics tests of this rather abstract [AP] statement for specific processes like element generation." "This can be done with the help of high performance computers that allow us to simulate worlds in which the fundamental parameters underlying nuclear physics take values different from the ones in Nature,"
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html
As mentioned above we cannot prove a creative agent directly so scientific verification in that sense is impossible simple because any observation is beyond our material world. But this is not different to a multiverse which is also given as a reasonable explanation. So therefore, we must use supposition and indirect evidence.
If we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe, then we should expect that this universe would have evidences of design. The fine-tuning of various physical constants is consistent with a creative agent’s design. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that a creative agent exists.
The fine-tuning argument does not prove that God as the Designer of the universe exists if proof means a knock-down, drag-out, deductive proof, the conclusions of which cannot reasonably be denied. It does, nonetheless, offer evidences of God’s design. Fine tuning is consistent with what we would expect from a Designer, and it supports theism better than materialism.
Does the Fine-Tuning Argument Work? | HuffPost
I would have thought that something that comes naturally and is a natural part of being human would be a reasonable thing to have. When I say that belief is a natural thing it is not because of any evolutionary cause. It is something beyond this as though we have an innate belief in us that we were born with there is a creative agent/God. That does not mean that there is a creative agent or God but taken together with other indirect support such as fine tuning it builds a case for a creative agent hypothesis.
According to Paul Stienhardt one of the founders of inflation theory because one of the consequences of inflation is a multiverse this invalidates the theory as it introduces many outcomes and undermines its predictability which is a fundamental requirement for scientific verification.That's plain stupid. Almost all well-established theories make unverified predictions; that doesn't make them invalid
the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved. But my concerns really grew when I discovered that, due to quantum fluctuation effects, inflation is generically eternal and (as others soon emphasized) this would lead to a multiverse.
Inflation was introduced to produce a universe that looks smooth and flat everywhere and that has features everywhere that agree with what we observe. Instead, it turns out that, due to quantum effects, inflation produces a multitude of patches (universes) that span every physically conceivable outcome. Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all.
We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?). To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.
Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive
Fair enough and I understand that we must provide scientific verification which will be hard to do directly. That is why I am making the case that a creative agent can be a reasonable hypothesis through indirect support. The problem we are having now is that none of the ideas with areas like cosmology and how things began can be scientifically verified because things are stepping beyond the standard models.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I said the support comes from theoretical physics, experimentation, test and research in the form of computer simulations and mathematical calculations. These are accepted forms of scientific verification and are used in areas such as biology and physics. Many of our theories are based on computer and math calculations. Theoretical physics is used with the verified science so is not used in isolation. Besides not all the links I posted were based on theoretical physics. A lot of our current theories are based on theoretical physics to some extent. Are you saying they are all invalid.
Why would the paper state that the evidence is scientifically valid. ie
A well understood and well-tested theory of fundamental physics (Quantum Field Theory — QFT) predicts contributions to the vacuum energy of the universe that are ,10120 times greater than the observed total value.The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously.
or
Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence.
After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
or
” Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Further, some theories that extend the Standard Model show how the constants could be shuffled in the early universe.
or
One can indeed perform physics tests of this rather abstract [AP] statement for specific processes like element generation. This can be done with the help of high performance computers that allow us to simulate worlds in which the fundamental parameters underlying nuclear physics take values different from the ones in Nature,"
or
This "effective field theory" is formulated on a complex numerical lattice that allows the researchers to run simulations that show how particles interact.
Lee adds, "This work is valuable because it gives us a much better idea of the kind of 'fine-tuning' nature has to do in order to produce carbon in stars."
The above is stating that the findings are based on tests and experimentation and also are extensions of the standard model of physics. Computer simulations are tested against verified findings and once they have aligned the simulation with the tested science they can then make alterations which reflect real situations as mentioned above. ie The program had previously confirmed the existence and structure of the Hoyle state with a numerical lattice that allowed the researchers to simulate how protons and neutrons interact.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
As far as I could see it was something people were disputing. It started with the puddle analogy and went on from there. The first part of the argument is to establish that the universe if fine tuned and this was being disputed for various reasons. One of those reasons was that there was no support that the values for our physical constants could vary in the first place. So I have been trying to establish this which has taken most of the time with the debate. But I am happy to know that you think this is not under dispute as it allows us to move on.
I appreciate that the next phase of the debate gets harder and as mentioned we cannot verify a creative agent directly. So this is where I have been trying to make a case for indirect evidence. As other scientific ideas are also based on indirect support I cannot see why a hypothesis for a creative agent is a big deal as there is just as much indirect evidence for this. I have provided some but there is more if we consider areas like biology, culture, psychology and sociology. Taken all together we cannot just put it all down to myth, evolution, imagination and delusion and can build a case for a creative agent behind things.
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Not that things could have been different but that you knew the parameters of the probability space and could calculate the odds against a life-supporting universe..
Yeah, a creative agent is no big deal, but it's a long way from a creative agent to the magic Bible-God of the creationists. How are you going to get there?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
pitabread
Well-Known Member
- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,372
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
You don't have the necessary information. How many different possible scenarios could result in a viable universe? You don't know. How many could support life? You don't know that either. How many chances are we talking about (e.g. how many universes exist, have existed or will exist). Nobody knows that either.
You basically don't have any of the pertinent information to even begin calculating the odds of our universe.
(And this is still ignoring the fact that after-the-fact probabilities of specific events is 1 anyway because the event has already occurred. E.g. the probability of the existence of our own universe is always going to be 1 because it already exists.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
When I say you can't or won't support it, I'm referring directly to what you said: "rather than I trying to support this..."
You can't know that it's the only logical argument for fine-tuning unless you know that there can be no other logical arguments - and both previously and later on in this very post(!), you say you accept that the multiverse is a possible argument. The fact is that we don't know the answer, or even what the possibilities are, so it's fallacious to make an absolute statement like yours.
But you made the claim, so tell us the logic that supports it and why no other logical explanation is possible.
You say that, but I must have missed where you explained it. I think you're mistaken - but show that I'm wrong by posting a link or reference to that explanation.
I don't know what their reasons are, and I don't particularly care - I was asking for your reasons. If you just find quotes from people who appear to agree with your preconception and then assume it's reasonable & logical because they think it's reasonable and logical, then your claim that you think it's reasonable and logical is clearly misleading.
The predisposition to attribute events to hidden agency is what leads to beliefs like creative agents. I've explained why a tendency for such beliefs is not any indication that the beliefs are likely to be true. Why do you think we don't attribute earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, or floods to the direct actions of gods any more? Because we know that's a false attribution. ID is a pseudoscientific wrapper for God beliefs which are illogical and irrational - believers acknowledge that religious faith is not logical or rational.
On the contrary, magical thinking is as fundamental in human psychology as the attribution of agency, and is also common in religious beliefs.
You haven't justified how it "points to a mind" - The only minds we have evidence for are produced by animal brains. I suspect you're trying to invoke some kind of hand-wavy magical mind that can do anything, but by all means support your claim clearly and concisely with logic and reason.
That sounds like the circular argument again. Why should we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe? and I've already explained why fine-tuning is a good argument against design.
To suppose a hidden agency for the unexplained when you know that the attribution of hidden agency is an ancient cognitive bias that has only ever been shown to be mistaken in such circumstances seems entirely perverse - and explains no more than does 'Magic' or simple chance.
You completely missed the point. You asserted that a 'creative agent' was present at the big bang when we know that the conditions at that point were inimical to life. This makes it illogical and irrational to suppose that any intelligent agency could be present (the simulation hypothesis would allow it, but that's a different idea). I was asking you to justify why it isn't illogical or irrational - without using fallacies like special pleading.
Nobody has argued that the parameters don't have specific values; the Weak Anthropic principle and the puddle parable explain why that doesn't support any particular explanatory argument. Simply asserting that it does is not an argument.
I've already told you the significant difference in logic and reason between those two hypotheses.
Now you're repeating yourself, and in the same post...
Again, there's a difference between finding it logical and reasonable for someone to hold a belief and the belief itself being logical and reasonable; if you know about cognitive biases it's logical and reasonable that people often have mistaken beliefs - and you do know about the relevant cognitive bias, yet you try to claim it as support for your assertion...
Repeatedly asserting it doesn't make it so. It's almost as if you keep repeating it just to avoid having to acknowledge you have no substantive argument for it.
I explained the error you're making here the last time you made this claim.
I'm not seeing reasoned discussion or argument from you, just the same old errors, assertions, and evasions. I don't want to repeat what I've already posted, so I'll leave it there.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
The multiverse has been put forward as a logical and reasonable option and so has a creative agent. If it is good for one it is good for both as they have about the same indirect support. Ideas can be put forward as reasonable it is just whether they stand the test of time. You cannot rule either out and nor can you fully rule them in. I posted support for this more than once so I don't know what else you want. PS I have linked the previous posts where I included support below.
I am going to finish on this point for the moment as it is the most relevant to our debate.
In a previous post you said that the universe is made up of physical laws and math and that these "can tell us how things happened". But they can't tell us what happened, they can only describe what has happened and have no creative ability. The most logical and reasonable inference we can make from the fact that the universe is made of math and physical laws is that they point to a mind behind things. For me this is one of the most logical and reasonable reasons we should consider a creative agent behind the universe. To sum this point here is a short video of a debate between Professors Lennox and Atkins.
Professor Lennox makes a pertinent point to Professor Atkins when he tries to make a case for a universe out of absolutely nothing through math and the null set. He states math does not come tumbling out of absolutely nothing, the null set is not absolutely nothing and it takes a creative mind to develop the mathematics out of what is regarded as absolutely nothing. Therefore the analogy would be that the universe can be created out of absolutely nothing by a creative mind. The universe reflects mathematics but it does not cause anything. Newtons laws describe what is happening but they do not cause motion. Human explorations and the methods used to understand the universe as a whole is pointing towards a mind behind things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RjlFJX6OjY
Another great cosmologist and astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees, has written a book entitled Just Six Numbers, in which he describes
six physical numbers that, if changed slightly, would produce a cosmos in which life could not exist. These include such things as the ratio of electrostatic to gravitational attraction. The coincidences seem too great to be ignored or written off as accidental.
One possibility is that the universe was intentionally and intelligently designed. As Aristotle might say, this could be a final cause, a meta-explanation that transcends ordinary scientific explanations, just as metaphysics transcends physics...
An Astronomer's Take On God
My point has been why can't a creative agent be considered as one of the ideas/hypothesis because there are reasonable and logical reasons to include this in the topic regardless of whether it can be definitely verified. The idea is to look at the evidence and gradually build a case for or against. I don't think either have been done to any extent that we can absolutely rule this in or out. Therefore it is reasonable and logical to include a creative agent.
Here are the other links you wanted with support already posted but I will not go over them again and leave it to you to work out. #518, #568, 572, #592, #597.
I will leave it at that as the next part of your post is actually addressing some of my reasons so I will address them in a separate post. regards Steve
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
The point is I post the quote only because it represents an entire paper or article that goes into great detail about the reasons so I have briefly outlined this such as probability, supposition and indirect evidence arguments which is too long to include. As I said there are associated reasons why belief is something more than magic and therefore lend support to valid reasons why people believe in a creative agent. This adds to the case of indirect evidence. It is not so black and white.
I happen to disagree with your conclusion that belief is just a predisposition to attribute agency and therefore render belief as unfounded and have supplied support for this. That is the point of what I was saying above. If you don't read the papers then you are not understanding them. I am not going to lay out what the entire paper is about with all its references.
I also disagree that having a natural belief in a creative agent is entirely a false attribution, that it is associated with extreme views about ID as an organised movement or that believers acknowledge belief is not logical or rational. This is the stereotypical view of people with faith but there has been a lot of research in recent years that shows that belief is a natural part of being human, we are born this way, it is not indoctrinated and is a part of us for good reason. Even children have sophisticated ways of understanding the differences between human made attribution and divine concepts. We look for a creator because our intuition tells us there is one.
I can refer you to the short video with Professor Lennox. The same logic we use to describe everything in the world and universe through things like math, laws, codes etc is the same logic for how we can attribute a creative agent/mind behind how it came about. Seems pretty logical and reasonable to me. But we tend to want to not admit this.
I don't get what you mean. It is because the initial values for the big bang were set from the beginning to ensure a universe for life that makes the fine tuning argument. It is still through a natural process which will include hostile events. But when the dust had settled there was a place for intelligent life to come about. This can be traced back to the initial start of things where there was some influence that ensured a place for life. In that sense the universe has not obstructed or been harmful for life but accommodated it.
Those arguments don't address or explain the complexity of fine tuning but rather make assumptions. There are explanations that go into greater detail about how the physical parameters of our universe were fine tuned beyond a chance or accidental event which gives the fine tuning argument more power. I have already posted these explanations.
Yes you claimed this but never gave any support whereas I have. As I stated when anyone discusses this topic the two most mentioned ideas are a creative agent and the multiverse and they are usually regarded with equal support either way. Sometimes one is pitted above the other but they are usually seen as having little evidence regardless of how someone can rationalise a case through indirect support. For example
Lee Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:
We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.
I claim it as one piece of a number of indirect supports. What I disagree with is the assumption that all belief is irrational and has no basis because some belief has been found to be irrational which is a logical fallacy. Like I said there is new research showing belief is more sophisticated than that. If rational people look beyond the material world because they have some innate reason to do so this cannot just be attributed to irrational thought all the time. It is a bit like when people say that consciousness maybe something beyond their physical bodies being made out to be irrational. The evidence keeps coming up that it is more than that and it cannot be fobbed off.
I disagree and think that I have made a reasonable argument for it. As mentioned I am not saying conclusively that there is a creative agent just like people are not saying conclusively that there is a multiverse. But we can at least include these ideas as possibilities because there is some indirect evidence.
Gee if I would have read this at the beginning I may not have gone to so much effort lol. Anyway fair enough we will have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevevw
inquisitive
If you read some of the articles I posted on how the constants can vary they talk about a very slight difference in values being enough to not allow the type of stars for example that would produce the elements needed for life. So we don't even have to have any great variables of space possibility but just a tiny fraction will be enough to change things.
I don't but the scientists who have written the papers do. Just like scientists can simulate what has happened at the beginning of our universe with the large Hadron Collider and computation which is accepted as science can also simulate events around physical constants. If you read the papers they had verified the simulations by replicating how the constants work and then made adjustments to values accordingly.
Yes and we are lucky to be here. If the possibilities were against it happening though doesn't it make it rare even after the fact. Remember the probabilities for fine tuning have been calculated at odds that go beyond chance so therefore impossible. So if someone said they won a lottery that had impossible odds you would think something fishy was going on.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I've already explained why they don't have the same indirect support.
No, I didn't. Prove me wrong, quote me.
What's the difference?
There's just no point continuing this.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
