Apparently you missed the comment about gravity doing the heavy lifting? Sheesh. You turn every post into an excuse to hurl personal insults.
Upvote
0
Scientific Argument for God's existence
- Thread starter mmarco
- Start date
- Status
Apparently you missed the comment about gravity doing the heavy lifting? Sheesh. You turn every post into an excuse to hurl personal insults.
Repeating the same nonsense is indicative you have zero comprehension of the subject.
The theoretical baryon content as predicted by λCDM is supported by three independent measurements; the CMB, Lyman-alpha forest spectra, and now the latest mass measurements from the intra-cluster medium.
The temperature power spectrum of the CMB contains a wealth of information and is based on measurement.
The only calculation for the baryon density parameter Ω(b)h² is h where h = H₀/100 as determined from Hubble’s constant H₀ and the amplitude based on the second peak.
This gives Ω(b)h² = 0.02230 +/- 0.00014
Since h = 0.696 +/- 0.007, taking the mean values;
Ω(b) = 0.02230/0.484 = 0.046 = 4.6% which is the baryon content of the universe.
This is meaningless unless it can be supported by an independent measurement.
This is accomplished by measuring Ω(b)h² from the Lyman-alpha forest spectra such as the absorption of light from distant quasars by primordial deuterium located between the quasar and observer.
The measured result is;
Ω(b)h² = 0.0230 +/- 0.002.
Ω(b) = 0.0230/0.484 = 0.048 = 4.8% which is in agreement with the CMB value.
The sheer nonsense of your argument is that the baryon content measured from the plasma between galaxies was initially only about half the value as determined from the CMB and Lyman-alpha spectra.
The latest discoveries rather than wrecking λCDM have brought the baryon content into agreement.
Half the universe’s missing matter has just been finally found
The total mass density parameter Ω(tot)h² is derived from the first peak of the CMB power spectrum and is found be.
Ω(tot)h² = 0.1385 +/- 0.0025.
Ω(tot) = 0.1385/0.484 = 0.286 = 28.6%
The dark matter component Ω(dark) is;
Ω(dark) = Ω(tot) - Ω(b) = 28.6% - 4.6% = 24.0%
That's a very nice postdicted fit, but it's also completely predicated on the *assumption* that redshift is related to "space expansion". That action/assumption alone is itself a 'pure act of faith' on the part of the believer, because nothing like that happens in a lab, whereas plasma redshift is a documented cause of photon redshift.
The Lyman-alpha forest spectra also depends on how one subjectively chooses to interpret the cause of redshift, and I have no faith whatsoever that we have the technology to accurately measure the intra-cluster medium when we've been underestimating the number of stars by *huge* amounts.
How Many Stars? Three Times as Many as We Thought, Report Says
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience
The point I was originally making is that a *multiverse* concept cannot in any possible way be consider 'more plausible' than the the concept of an intelligent creator. We're drifting way off topic at this point.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Anyone who thinks a repulsion force is required to keep things stable in an orbit doesn’t know what they are talking about which qualifies as word salad.
For someone who boldly declared a few posts ago the cosmic web was all about electric currents in plasma which generated an EM force you have totally capitulated.
Upvote
0
What a profound case of projection.
The science behind the CMB is way out of your depth but you choose to reject it not because you know any better, because you see it as an attack on your faith.
You are no better than a flat earther using nonsensical arguments to defend their faith.
This is an example of you being completely out of your depth.
Tripling the number of stars does not triple the baryonic mass density parameter Ω(b).
Since stars only contribute around 1% of the total energy density parameter Ω of the universe, tripling the number of stars will only increase Ω(b) by around 3% which is way short of accounting for dark matter.
What are you babbling on about now?
I never mentioned the multiverse in any of my posts.
Upvote
0
Oy Vey. Apparently you just haven't been listening, or you're just hearing what you wish to hear.
Upvote
0
I "know" for a fact that "space expansion" defies laboratory experimental support, now and forever, meaning it's necessarily an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer, *for all time*. I know that such a concept also violates conservation of energy laws. I also know that plasma redshift shows up in the lab, violates no known laws of physics, and space is full of plasma.
Nothing about these concepts is "out of my depth", I simply have a preference for pure empirical solutions to observations of redshift over metaphysical "assumptions" which defy known laws of physics. Period. Even Hubble himself ultimately abandoned the expansion interpretation of redshift.
Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press
Was Edwin Hubble also out of his depth?
That is such a classic case of pure projection that it's not even funny. The whole assumption of space expansion is a pure act of faith. You're reduced to attacking the individual because space expansion is simply a horrifically weak and flawed model.
That's technically only true of the LCDM model, and it's not like it's the *only* major problem in mainstream baryonic mass estimates that have been identified since that now infamous bullet cluster study of 2006. We've also found more mass in the form of hot plasma and cooler hydrogen gas in and around our own galaxy since 2012 than all the known mass of our galaxy prior to 2012.
Milky Way is Surrounded by Huge Halo of Hot Gas | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News
Galaxy’s hydrogen halo hides missing mass | Cosmos
You therefore have *zero* evidence that mainstream baryonic mass estimates of distant galaxies and clusters are even in the right ballpark, and plenty of evidence that the estimates used in 2006 were *hopelessly flawed*.
Go back and read my posts in this thread. I originally just scoffed at FB's suggestion that the multiverse concept was "plausible". It's certainly no more plausible than "God did it". Even a pantheistic/panentheistic definition of God is more 'plausible' than multiverse theory.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You have confirmed yet again of being hopelessly out of your depth.
Using an appeal to authority argument indicates you are incapable of levelling up to a discussion based on understanding.
For example why is Eddington’s temperature of space inconsistent with the l =1 multipole which corresponds to the dipole observed in the CMB.
If you were to be honest your answer would be in not understanding the question........
The victim playing role is getting rather tiresome.
And here you are in total denial mode as all your evidence has gone into solving the missing baryon problem.
No on else in mainstream is making a song and dance over it like you.
Get over it.
Yes I did read your posts and provides an excellent example of why most of your posts are based on irrelevant nonsense as it had absolutely nothing to do with addressing my post.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Scoffing isn't an argument.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you don't think the patchwork or 'quilted' cosmological multiverse is plausible?
Alternatively, you could try to explain why you don't find the quantum multiverse plausible...
Upvote
0
Scientific Argument for God's existence
I didn't simply "scoff", I provided you with a quote from Paul Davies explaining *why* it's not any more plausible than "God did it". The whole concept has to be "taken on faith".
Emphasis mine.
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
You have confirmed yet again that you continue to argue against the *individual* rather than sticking to the topic. Sheesh.
That's certainly ironic and amusing. You simply ignored the fact that 'space expansion' isn't actually even a demonstrated cause of redshift, unlike plasma redshift, and it violates conservation of energy laws unlike plasma redshift.
It's also ironic that when you cite the opinions of "experts" to support your cosmological beliefs, that's not an appeal to authority fallacy in your mind, but when I do it, you get all indignant. That's very amusing. The fact of the matter is that even the astronomer that discovered distant galaxies and discovered the redshift relationship phenomenon wasn't convinced that it was related to expansion, demonstrating conclusively that not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily 'out of their depth'. That was my only point in even citing Hubble's own reshift beliefs in the first place.
Well, I certainly don't understand why you're attempting to apply multipole expansion concepts to Eddington's non expansion oriented calculations. The dipole in the CMB is typically associated with the movement of our galaxy with respect to the microwave background. That relative movement of our own galaxy would tend to effect all models, including non-expansion models.
The reason Eddington didn't predict a dipole pattern in the CMB is because at the time he came up with that estimate of the average temperature of space, nobody was even aware that there were additional galaxies in the universe, or that our galaxy was in motion relative to the bulk of those galaxies.
Your fixation on the individual is getting tiresome as well.
Astronomers have found more "baryons" since 2006 than were even missing from their estimates in the first place. They've since found out they've been underestimating the number of stars in various galaxies by a factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. They've been underestimating the number of stars *outside* of galaxies, and underestimating the brightness of galaxies by a factor of 2. That is all *on top of* all of the extra plasma and gas they've found in "halos" around our own galaxy, right where"dark matter" models predict the existence of additional mass.The mainstream no longer has a 'missing baryon' problem it has a *surplus* baryon problem which they have to turn a blind eye to because of the fact that the CMB argument won't handle any serious changes to the ratio between ordinary baryonic material and exotic forms of matter and still fit the curve. It's therefore necessary to simply ignore all those *other* baryonic calculation errors entirely. It's like the astronomer's version of a Jedi mind trick: "This isn't the missing matter that we're looking for".
Of course LCDM proponents don't want to discuss all those baryonic mass estimation errors *in total* because it blows huge holes in their CMB arguments if they try to update the baryonic mass estimation techniques to include all of the *numerous* errors that they've made when estimating the mass of various galaxies. It's therefore necessary to simply ignore the numerous baryonic mass estimation problems and hope that nobody notices.
I'm not sure why you even chimed in to start with. I was simply noting how silly it was for FB to suggest that the statement "The multiverse did it" is any more 'plausible' than claiming that 'God did it'. The multiverse idea is simply another 'faith based" belief system which suffers from all of the very same pitfalls of any faith based belief system as Paul Davies so eloquently explained in his article.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Three points -
- He was talking about the inflationary multiverse, which is not what I asked you about.
- He makes an explicit slippery slope argument combined with an argument from incredulity (two fallacies for the price of one) - in case you missed it, "all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit." Predictions of scientific theories are often untestable in the era of their discovery; some remain so. The inflationary multiverse can be falsified by the falsification of inflationary theory, or supported by evidence of interaction with other 'bubble' universes. Time will (may) tell. As Davies himself says - "... caution is strongly advised. The history of science rarely repeats itself. Maybe there is some restricted form of multiverse, but if the concept is pushed too far, then the rationally ordered (and apparently real) world we perceive gets gobbled up in an infinitely complex charade, with the truth lying forever beyond our ken." IOW, he's not averse to the idea, and even thinks it's possible; he just can't cope with the full implications.
- He makes a straw-man argument - the very part you bolded. As I have previously explained, the inflationary multiverse was predicted before its application to justify the Weak Anthropic Principle was proposed. In fact, it's generally considered by cosmologists as unsatisfactory as an explanation, for obvious reasons. The simple fact is, that if inflationary theory explains how our universe came to be the way it appears to us, it also follows from the underlying mathematics that it also could generate many other universes with different physical laws. These are two different explanations, one concerning the development of features of our universe (i.e. not directly involving its physical laws), the other involving the possibility of volumes with different physical laws.
Incidentally, if you think one or other multiverse hypothesis is "certainly no more plausible than 'God did it'", perhaps you'd also like to describe the physical theory that predicts "God did it"? (links to published papers in reputable journals, references, citations, etc., welcome)
Upvote
0
Shall I take that as a tacit acceptance on your part of the fact that an inflationary multiverse concept isn't particularly "plausible" for the reasons he outlines?
So how exactly does that differ from the concept of the existence of an intelligent creator? It might be possible at some future date to support a more specific concept of God like Pantheism or Panetheism, and/or a more "limited" concept of "God". If we're going to talk about relative "plausibility" factors, the same issues that apply to multiverse concepts can also be applied to the topic of God.
What you're also kind of glossing over is that in order to falsify inflation, you'd have to have observations which specifically relate to "non uniformity", which you would immediately try to associate with interactions with another 'bubble universe" rather than accepting such an observation as a falsification of inflation. It's a circular feedback loop which utterly defies falsification. If no evidence of non uniformity is found, then inflation can't be falsified. If evidence of non-uniformity *is* found, it won't be interpreted as a falsification of inflation, just a "verification" of inflation *and* multiverse bubbles!. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition.
Even those observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies is simply "glossed over" or just ignored by the mainstream in spite of the fact that they defy the predictions of expansion models and inflation theory and galaxy evolution.
How then is it ever going to be possible to falsify inflation when every failed prediction is simply ignored, glossed over, or "explained" with yet another ad hoc fudge factor?
Was it? When was it first proposed, by whom, and why, and which *specific* variation are you talking about? The first time I heard the term was in direct relationship to 'eternal inflation', after the 1980's.
Ok.
Except it really doesn't explain what we observe at higher and higher redshifts. In fact, mature galaxies and massive objects tend to defy *all* expansion models which tend to predict galaxy evolution over time.
Yet we have exactly zero evidence that more than a single universe exists, or that any of them deviate from the physical laws that we observe here on Earth. How would we even begin to test such a concept in the first place?
So how do you justify the "plausibility" of proposing different universes with different physics laws, while trying to deny the "plausibility" of all of that deviation being done by a "creator" If you're going to propose an "anything is possible" set of universes, why would you "assume" that an intelligent creator exists in *none* of them?
You'd have to explain to me what you think makes *any* suggestion of a *any* multiverse concept is "better"/more plausible than any other. I don't really see much of an empirical difference frankly because most of the same criticisms would still apply. How would I go about validating or falsifying *any* of them (unrelated to inflation)?
Is that an appeal to authority fallacy by chance?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305106645_A_Scientific_Model_of_Pantheism
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, take it as saying you didn't answer the question.
It differs by not being the concept of the existence of an intelligent creator, but rather the prediction of a widely used physical hypothesis.
No; an interaction with another bubble volume would apparently leave a characteristic imprint on only part of the CMB. Inflation explains the overall distribution of the CMB (as well as cosmological isotropy, homogeneity, the flatness of spacetime, and the lack of magnetic monopoles).
Inflation was proposed by Alan Guth in 1981; Steinhardt described eternal inflation in 1983, and the anthropic principle problem arose out of a subsequent debate on how to calculate statistical probabilities in an eternal model that produced a potentially infinite number of bubbles with varying physical properties.
I don't know. Inflation explains a number of puzzling observed features, but also has implications that some people are uncomfortable with. The best way to solve the problem is to come up with a better explanation that fits the data and is more palatable (though frankly in the meantime they can still use what is relevant to our universe and simply ignore the bits that are causally isolated from us).
I'm not denying that anything could be done by a "creator" (I presume you mean God?). I'm saying that given my criteria for plausibility in this context (described previously), the predictions of a widely accepted hypothesis with a solid physical and mathematical basis, are more plausible than invoking an ill-defined and ontologically inexplicable 'creator' entity. Eternal inflation may not rank very high by common abductive criteria, but inevitably outranks the bottom dwellers (the supernatural, mystical, magical, etc).
I'm yet to get an answer as to how the God hypothesis is a better hypothesis than 'magic', or what abductive criterion it satisfies in any respect.
Strawman. Nobody suggested 'anything is possible', and nobody said an intelligent creator didn't exist in any - e.g. humans are intelligent creators that exist in one. As long as your intelligent creator is consistent with the physics of some physically possible universe, you're welcome to imagine an infinite number of them, of all physically possible varieties.
The scientific plausibility of any prediction depends to a large degree on the robustness of the theory that predicts it and the additional assumptions it requires. The plausibility to any given individual will be additionally influenced by personal biases.
No; a request for authoritative corroboration is quite different from an appeal to authority (which is insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered).
Thanks, that was quite amusing... Ostrowick clearly doesn't hold a high opinion of restricted theism or traditional models of pantheism:
"...it is quite possible to construct a model of pantheism which is not as implausible as restricted theism or traditional models of pantheism..."
And to add insult to injury, he puts his idea in the same plausibility ball-park as Boltzmann brains. So, understandably, he's not making any claims for it:
"...in the end, it will not do the same job as restricted theism, even if it turned out to be true. The article does not aim to defend its premises ... in more than a cursory way; the conclusions of the article are tentative and conditional: if functionalism is true, then physicalist pantheism may be true."
If you read the paper, there are a number of very dubious arguments; but his implication that if cosmologists can accept one sort of disembodied consciousness (Boltzmann brains), other forms of disembodied consciousness should be equally plausible - misses the point that Boltzmann brains are supposed to be (very briefly) identical to biological brains, so disembodied only in the sense of an organ removed from its body, not in the sense of being independently viable (equivocation or ignorance? you be the judge).
Then there's the speculative requirements for consciousness, and the hand-wavingly vague definition of functionalism, "...anything structured a lot like a brain will give rise to consciousness"(!), and the cargo-cult 'Law of Similars' (that you used earlier), where superficial resemblance is equated to structural similarity, and so to functional equivalence... He chooses gravity waves for communication rather than electromagnetic waves, but like you, fails to grasp the speed of gravity relative to the size of the structures involved.
Make your terms sufficiently vague and hand-wave wherever possible, and you can make a 'wildly speculative' case that any old tosh is less implausible than 'restricted theism or traditional models of pantheism.'
It's almost a POE, except that he admits it's "wild speculation", and that, in any case, "... physicalist pantheism (PP) does not in fact give us any explanatory benefits."
Some chuckles in there, but it's hardly a vote of encouragement for physical pantheism!
Upvote
0
No, take it as saying you didn't answer the question.
It differs by not being the concept of the existence of an intelligent creator, but rather the prediction of a widely used physical hypothesis.
No; an interaction with another bubble volume would apparently leave a characteristic imprint on only part of the CMB. Inflation explains the overall distribution of the CMB (as well as cosmological isotropy, homogeneity, the flatness of spacetime, and the lack of magnetic monopoles).
Inflation was proposed by Alan Guth in 1981; Steinhardt described eternal inflation in 1983, and the anthropic principle problem arose out of a subsequent debate on how to calculate statistical probabilities in an eternal model that produced a potentially infinite number of bubbles with varying physical properties.
I don't know. Inflation explains a number of puzzling observed features, but also has implications that some people are uncomfortable with. The best way to solve the problem is to come up with a better explanation that fits the data and is more palatable (though frankly in the meantime they can still use what is relevant to our universe and simply ignore the bits that are causally isolated from us).
I'm not denying that anything could be done by a "creator" (I presume you mean God?). I'm saying that given my criteria for plausibility in this context (described previously), the predictions of a widely accepted hypothesis with a solid physical and mathematical basis, are more plausible than invoking an ill-defined and ontologically inexplicable 'creator' entity. Eternal inflation may not rank very high by common abductive criteria, but inevitably outranks the bottom dwellers (the supernatural, mystical, magical, etc).
I'm yet to get an answer as to how the God hypothesis is a better hypothesis than 'magic', or what abductive criterion it satisfies in any respect.
Strawman. Nobody suggested 'anything is possible', and nobody said an intelligent creator didn't exist in any - e.g. humans are intelligent creators that exist in one. As long as your intelligent creator is consistent with the physics of some physically possible universe, you're welcome to imagine an infinite number of them, of all physically possible varieties.
The scientific plausibility of any prediction depends to a large degree on the robustness of the theory that predicts it and the additional assumptions it requires. The plausibility to any given individual will be additionally influenced by personal biases.
So perhaps you'd like to explain why you don't think the patchwork or 'quilted' cosmological multiverse is plausible?
Alternatively, you could try to explain why you don't find the quantum multiverse plausible...
IOW what do you see as the scientific or philosophical arguments against them?
No; a request for authoritative corroboration is quite different from an appeal to authority (which is insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered).
Thanks, that was quite amusing... Ostrowick clearly doesn't hold a high opinion of restricted theism or traditional models of pantheism:
"...it is quite possible to construct a model of pantheism which is not as implausible as restricted theism or traditional models of pantheism..."
And to add insult to injury, he puts his idea in the same plausibility ball-park as Boltzmann brains. So, understandably, he's not making any claims for it:
"...in the end, it will not do the same job as restricted theism, even if it turned out to be true. The article does not aim to defend its premises ... in more than a cursory way; the conclusions of the article are tentative and conditional: if functionalism is true, then physicalist pantheism may be true."
If you read the paper, there are a number of very dubious arguments; but his implication that if cosmologists can accept one sort of disembodied consciousness (Boltzmann brains), other forms of disembodied consciousness should be equally plausible - misses the point that Boltzmann brains are supposed to be (very briefly) identical to biological brains, so disembodied only in the sense of an organ removed from its body, not in the sense of being independently viable (equivocation or ignorance? you be the judge).
Then there's the speculative requirements for consciousness, and the hand-wavingly vague definition of functionalism, "...anything structured a lot like a brain will give rise to consciousness"(!), and the cargo-cult 'Law of Similars' (that you used earlier), where superficial resemblance is equated to structural similarity, and so to functional equivalence... He chooses gravity waves for communication rather than electromagnetic waves, but like you, fails to grasp the speed of gravity relative to the size of the structures involved.
Make your terms sufficiently vague and hand-wave wherever possible, and you can make a 'wildly speculative' case that any old tosh is less implausible than 'restricted theism or traditional models of pantheism.'
It's almost a POE, except that he admits it's "wild speculation", and that, in any case, "... physicalist pantheism (PP) does not in fact give us any explanatory benefits."
Some chuckles in there, but it's hardly a vote of encouragement for physical pantheism!
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
Michael said:
It has been explained to you on numerous occasions the conservation of energy doesn’t apply to expanding cosmologies.
Given the technical details were clearly beyond your capacity, it was simplified for you by giving a historical perspective where Einstein and Hilbert understood the conservation of energy was not an inviolate property in GR a good ten years before an expanding cosmological model was even conceived.
You are peddling misinformation.
Not only was it an appeal to authority it was completely irrelevant to the science behind the CMB.
It certainly would not be the same for a non expansion model!!!!
The dipole vanishes in the CMB’s comoving frame as the observer in our Galaxy is stationary.
There is no cosmological comoving frame in a non expansion model and the CMB blackbody temperature would be measured at around 3000K not 2.7K.
And here you are out of your depth because you fail to understand that Eddington’s space and our galaxy are in the same frame of reference and there would be no dipole at all period.
This is a repeat of the same nonsense with a conspiracy theory thrown in for good measure.Astronomers have found more "baryons" since 2006 than were even missing from their estimates in the first place.
The mainstream no longer has a 'missing baryon' problem it has a *surplus* baryon problem which they have to turn a blind eye to because of the fact that the CMB argument won't handle any serious changes to the ratio between ordinary baryonic material and exotic forms of matter and still fit the curve. It's therefore necessary to simply ignore all those *other* baryonic calculation errors entirely. It's like the astronomer's version of a Jedi mind trick: "This isn't the missing matter that we're looking for".
Of course LCDM proponents don't want to discuss all those baryonic mass estimation errors *in total* because it blows huge holes in their CMB arguments if they try to update the baryonic mass estimation techniques to include all of the *numerous* errors that they've made when estimating the mass of various galaxies. It's therefore necessary to simply ignore the numerous baryonic mass estimation problems and hope that nobody notices.
All you need to show is a peer reviewed paper that supports your claims.
Mainstreamers would be jumping for joy as no dark matter would greatly simplify the model.
What mainstreamers understand which you don’t as explained in my previous posts is the evidence that comes from the CMB.
Your attempts to con readers into thinking you understand the issues by making up garbage only makes it more obvious you are totally out of your depth.
For the umpteenth time this has absolutely nothing to do with my posts.
You are obviously looking for a fight at any cost.
Upvote
0
tampasteve
Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
- May 15, 2017
- 25,353
- 7,327
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
MOD HAT ON
This thread is now closed permanently due to off topic posts and goading.
MOD HAT OFF
This thread is now closed permanently due to off topic posts and goading.
MOD HAT OFF
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
