Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 495
  1. #361
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I only meant to imply that that is usual structure of our discussions, so it would be best to start there.
    And yet it utterly failed as a starting point - which only goes to show that your comment was indeed a misrepresentation of my position - which, simply put, is that the proper course is rational skepticism of any claims regarding something we currently have no idea even exists let alone have no ability to observe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
    Could you define "fine-tuning" and provide some support that the universe is finely-tuned?

  2. #362
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. Love God with all your heart, soul, mind.
    2. Love your neighbor as thyself.
    "Love x" is not a belief, it's an action.
    What exactly is the theistic belief you're forwarding here, that these are Xtian commandments, that a deity has commanded these things, or that they're good actions for someone to take?

  3. #363
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What exactly is the theistic belief you're forwarding here,
    The belief in the validity of the Greatest Christian commandment which is a fundamental belief of most Christians.

    1. Love God with all you heart, soul, mind.
    2. Love your neighbor as thyself.

    Loving God and others is also a choice for Christians that one can reject because they don’t believe they should love God or others, or they can accept it because they believe it’s a valid and rational principle.

    Please support why this principle is an irrational belief for Christians?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  4. #364
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,052
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

    2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

    3. Therefore, it is due to design.
    The universe, as best we have reason to believe, is billions of years old and is vast almost beyond imagination. Apparently, humans have been extant for only a tiny fraction of that time, can exist in only a tiny fraction of that vast space, and will likely be extinct in the next tiny fraction of that time.

    Since this is the case, it makes about as much sense to believe that the universe was designed for us as it makes to believe that the White House was designed for the tiny mouse who currently lives in a tiny hole in one wall of that structure, who stays alive by eating tiny crumbs of food it finds on its floors, and who by all odds will be dead within 2 days.

    Even on the tiniest of odds that the universe was designed, given the above, isn't it beyond arrogance to believe that it was designed for us?

    OTOH, have you considered the possibility that we humans are just one of many, many, many temporary products (like galaxies and planets and elephants) of the universe's unimaginably slow, eons-long evolutionary process? Here today, gone tomorrow -- just like 99+% of the other millions of now extinct species that once existed here on our own little miniscule speck of the universe?

    If anything, it seems much more likely that we were "designed" by the universe than that the universe was designed for us.

  5. Likes futureboy liked this post
  6. #365
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The belief in the validity of the Greatest Christian commandment
    What justifies this belief? What makes your belief that this is a valid commandment rational? Because someone told you it's valid?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. Love God with all you heart, soul, mind.
    There are some implicit claims here which are not justified, regarding hearts & souls. Hearts pump blood, so I'm not sure what yours is doing. And a "soul" isn't something which has been demonstrated to exist, so no justification there, either. And that's ignoring, for now, the implicit claim that the object of love exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Loving God and others is also a choice for Christians that one can reject because they don’t believe they should love God or others, or they can accept it because they believe it’s a valid and rational principle.
    Can a Xtian reject that choice and still be considered a Xtian? What would happen to someone if they did reject it?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Please support why this principle is an irrational belief for Christians?
    Because it lacks rational justification. Try to think of beliefs as with guilt in a courtroom - innocent until proven guilty. No belief is rational until justification is provided. Otherwise, one could just as well answer your question with, "Please support that X belief which directly contradicts yours is irrational?"

    In any case, why is there even a need to command love? From what I know of love, it's not something which can be commanded or expected. The fact that you believe it's commanded speaks volumes regarding the irrationality of the beliefs associated with such a commandment.

    ---------- Post added at 09:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    If anything, it seems much more likely that we were "designed" by the universe than that the universe was designed for us.
    Exactly - it's the old puddle analogy, from Douglas Adams:
    This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

  7. #366
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Here's a fun aside: Define how you detect design.

    This is what I love about these sorts of debates where someone claims some part of the universe (or the whole universe) is "designed". If you believe the universe is designed then list out your steps for how you determined that. One by one. You should be able to present these steps so they apply to anything. Like if I had two objects in front of me and one is designed and one is naturally/randomly occurring, I should be able to follow your steps and determine accurately which one is designed and which isn't.

  8. Thanks futureboy thanked for this post
  9. #367
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Here's a fun aside: Define how you detect design.

    This is what I love about these sorts of debates where someone claims some part of the universe (or the whole universe) is "designed". If you believe the universe is designed then list out your steps for how you determined that. One by one. You should be able to present these steps so they apply to anything. Like if I had two objects in front of me and one is designed and one is naturally/randomly occurring, I should be able to follow your steps and determine accurately which one is designed and which isn't.
    Not an aside at all, but a serious issue for theists claiming design! They will usually rely on the apparent intuitiveness of designed things - "a building requires a building, a painting requires a painter, and likewise creation requires a creator". Not only does such reasoning assume what they're trying to argue, they completely brush over the methods by which we actually determine whether something is natural or designed.

  10. #368
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Could you define "fine-tuning" and provide some support that the universe is finely-tuned?
    Certainly. Fine-tuning is a well used term within physics. Its definition generally revolves around the margin a physical constant can deviate before the universe we live in would no longer permit life. There are generally recognized to be four categories of fine-tuning recognized in physics. Fine tuning of physical laws, physical constants (which I will primarily deal with), the universe's initial conditions, and high level features of the universe.


    The technical definition I will follow related to the fine tuning of physical constants is that a physical constant is fine-tuned if the probability of the values that permit life within the population of total possible values is greater than 5 sigma.


    The following should not be taken as an exhaustive list of the evidence or examples of fine tuning. ODN character limits and time limit the sheer number of examples I can offer (as one can see in the sheer number of papers and books published on the subject). However, here are some of the strongest cases;


    The Cosmological Constant

    This is a constant necessary within General Relativity. It, very generally, governs whether the universe expands or contracts. Positive values cause space to expand, negative values cause space to contract. The constant must be unbelievably close to zero in order for any kind of matter to form in the universe. Physicist Steven Weinberg calculated that the cosmological constant must be within one part within 10^120 to prevent the uinverse from either never having formed stars or having collapsed in on itself long ago.

    To put that in perspective, if we were to create a metaphorical ruler that was as long as the universe (93 Billion light years), the values the cosmological constant would need to occupy cluster around 1/100th of a inch of zero.


    Gravitational Constant


    Gravity is, I think a bit more intuitive. A lower gravitational value and planets don't form, let alone stars. A higher gravitational value and stars burn out quickly, higher order life cannot exist, and blackholes rule the universe. If gravity was higher or lower by one part in 10^36 no life would be possible in this universe.


    Strong and Weak Nuclear forces


    These are the forces that govern how atoms are formed within our universe and, importantly, how those atoms interact in nuclear activity. If either of these is altered significantly no atoms form in our universe and no nuclear activity (read stars) occurs. The relative fine tunning of each of these is 1 in 1^100 and 1 in 10^9 respectively.


    Up and Down Quarks


    Quarks are the fundamental (more or less) building blocks for elementary particles. Quarks combine to create protons, neutrons, etc. The ratio of the masses of these two types of quarks (out of the six) is required in order for the universe to have stable protons or neutrons, which are, of course necessary for atoms to form. A small variance in either, or both, of their masses would have prevented any coherent matter from forming in the universe. This fine tuning is aproximately 3 parts in 1036.


    Carbon Production in Stars


    This is the example that prompted Sir Fred Hoyle, the notable astrophysicist, to exclaim that the universe is a put up job. This deals with the amount of carbon and oxygen produced in the heavy fusion process within stars. It revolves around the ability of a star to be heavy enough to produce these heavier elements without either collapse or exploding first. It is a relatively fine balance that allows stars to produce carbon and oxygen at levels sufficient for life. Generally this fine tuning is assessed as one part in six. Certainly not an enormous value, but consider that if each of these examples was as low as one part in six, the total probability would be one part in a million.


    Fine-tuned conditions in the early universe


    To save myself a bit of time, I'll just quote from Stanford's site:


    The global cosmic energy density ρ in the very early universe is extremely close to its so-called critical value ρc. The critical value ρc is defined by the transition from negatively curved universes (ρ<ρc) to flat (critical density ρ=ρc) to positively curved (ρ>ρc) universes. Had ρ not been extremely close to ρc in the very early universe, life could not have existed: for slightly larger values, the universe would have recollapsed quickly and time would not have sufficed for stars to evolve; for slightly smaller values, the universe would have expanded so quickly that stars and galaxies would have failed to condense out (Rees 2000: ch. 6; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 5).

    The relative amplitude Q of density fluctuations in the early universe, known to be roughly 2⋅10−5, seems fine-tuned for life (Tegmark & Rees 1998; Rees 2000: ch. 8). If Q had been smaller by about one order of magnitude, the universe would have remained essentially structureless since the pull of gravity would not have sufficed to create astronomic structures like galaxies and stars. If, in contrast, Q had been significantly larger, galaxy-sized structures would have formed early in the history of the universe and soon collapsed into black holes.
    The initial entropy of the universe must have been exceedingly low. According to Penrose, universes “resembling the one in which we live” (2004: 343) populate only one part in 10^10^123 of the available phase space volume.




    Conclusion


    I think it is important to highlight that these numbers are just a small portion of the improbability that is a life-permitting universe. This defense massively understates the case. I dealt with only 5 of the known 335 physical constants. I didn't address any physical laws, and only two of the at least four dozen examples of initial conditions available. I only addressed one of the higher order fine tuning examples out of more than a hundred examples discoverable in literature.

    So it is relatively clear that this number is an incredibly conservative one at that.

    To highlight the scope of just how improbable, I want to point out that there have been something like 10^17 seconds in the history of the universe. There are something like 10^80 subatomic particles in the universe. If you were to fire a bullet across the entirety of the known universe and hit a one inch target, that would be 1 in 10^10^60.

    Entropy alone is one part in 10^10^123.

    And that is only one of the eight factors listed above, and only one of tens of dozens of examples in physical literature.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #369
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    a physical constant is fine-tuned if the probability of the values that permit life within the population of total possible values is greater than 5 sigma
    How on earth does one calculate the probability of different values for physical constants?

    Second, the universe permits all sorts of things - galaxies, stars, planets - all of which appear in much greater abundance than life. On what basis do you say that the universe was finely-tuned for life?

  12. #370
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    The fine tuning argument is first class Grade A USDA horse manure.

    Here's why:

    1. An infinite amount of space is completely and utterly hostile to life. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999% of everywhere is either too hot / too cold / too resource poor / too irradiated for life to exist. Thus if we're talking about the phrase "The universe is fine tuned for life" we're talking about grammatically correct gibberish. I can't imagine looking at a thing that's 99.9+ against something and saying that conditions are in any way fine tuned for it. It's like saying "See that building that's on fire? Well somewhere inside it is a crawlspace that's not on fire and perfectly comfortable therefor we can say that the burning building is a perfect place to live right now while it's on fire!"

    2. That should be the end of the argument. Whatever qualities the universe has that allow for life to exist are stacked tremendously AGAINST the existence of life. The idea that our universe has been "tuned" by someone or something [it wasn't. I'm humoring you] to allow for life tells us that the tuner was either tremendously incompetent or utterly hostile towards life. Sadly some people still need more convincing.

    3. If we get into intelligent life, it gets even worse. We live on one planet that has a surface where, without technology* we can survive almost NOWHERE on our planet. 75% of it is covered with salt water that we can't drink and can only swim in for brief dips. An entire continent is frozen.

    4. Looking at life itself, it's painfully obvious to the scientifically literate that intelligent life is in absolutely no way a guarantee. Life has existed for millions of years without any intelligence at all. For millions of years, the "smartest" life forms were just cunning animals with no language/culture/ability to think abstractly/etc. Humans have been around for an eyeblink and our survival was never promised. At any time in our ancestry a good plague, a meteor impact, or the like could have killed us all off before we even discovered fire.

    So you can say "the universe has qualities X,Y,Z and were they different we wouldn't exist" and I'll 100% agree with you. But saying the universe is "fine tuned for life" is about the most inane thing I have heard in hours (and I was on 4chan earlier).

    *by "technology" I mean any tool, clothing, or object that is not part of our bodies. A hut made of straw is technology. Clothes are technology. etc.

  13. #371
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What justifies this belief?
    Let me remind you FB, that this is your thread and you are the one making the claim that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified. I am not making a generalized sweeping claim. Nor do I have to justify anything. So let’s review:

    1. FB makes a claim that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified.

    2. Eye asks you to cite a specific theistic belief that is not rationally justified.

    3. FB responds and says "it could be anything."

    4. Eye names the Christian belief in the Great Commandment, loving God and our neighbor that you need to support is not rationally justified.

    5. Please note, this belief presumes the existence of God. You said “it could be anything,” so I chose a belief that presumes the existence of the Creator.

    6. You don’t have to believe in a Creator, but if you want to argue your point of why this belief in loving God and our neighbor is irrational for Christians, the existence of God is presumed.

    7. So since you are the person making the claim that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified, you now have a specific Christian belief to support is irrational that happens to presume the existence of God. Thus, you can make your case of why the belief of loving God and our neighbor is irrationally justified.

    8. For the purpose of debate here are a few Biblical descriptions of God: Spirit, Light, is both outside and within the natural world, God is Love, an all-consuming fire, good, righteous, God IS.

    9. If you don’t want to debate a specific belief that presumes the existence of God, that’s fine, but you did say, “it could be anything.”
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  14. #372
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Let me remind you FB, that this is your thread and you are the one making the claim that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified. I am not making a generalized sweeping claim. Nor do I have to justify anything. So let’s review:

    1. FB makes a claim that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified.

    2. Eye asks you to cite a specific theistic belief that is not rationally justified.

    3. FB responds and says "it could be anything."

    4. Eye names the Christian belief in the Great Commandment, loving God and our neighbor that you need to support is not rationally justified.

    5. Please note, this belief presumes the existence of God. You said “it could be anything,” so I chose a belief that presumes the existence of the Creator.

    6. You don’t have to believe in a Creator, but if you want to argue your point of why this belief in loving God and our neighbor is irrational for Christians, the existence of God is presumed.

    7. So since you are the person making the claim that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified, you now have a specific Christian belief to support is irrational that happens to presume the existence of God. Thus, you can make your case of why the belief of loving God and our neighbor is irrationally justified.

    8. For the purpose of debate here are a few Biblical descriptions of God: Spirit, Light, is both outside and within the natural world, God is Love, an all-consuming fire, good, righteous, God IS.

    9. If you don’t want to debate a specific belief that presumes the existence of God, that’s fine, but you did say, “it could be anything.”
    Okay, let's get one thing straight: "FB" means "Facebook". I just skimmed through the thread trying to figure out when this started being about social media. Your uncle Zhav is old and doesn't see so well anymore.

    Not cool, man. Not cool.

  15. #373
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I chose a belief that presumes the existence of the Creator
    Again, no belief is rational until justification is provided, and that includes presumptions. If you presume the existence of god without providing rational justification, then it's irrational to do so.

    If you want to have an honest discussion about your theistic beliefs and whether they're rationally justified, by all means let's do so. If, instead, you want to play gotcha games (as it appears you have been trying to do from the get-go), then don't bother. Any belief that has to rely on playing gotcha is by definition irrational.

  16. #374
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. Love God with all you heart, soul, mind.
    2. Love your neighbor as thyself.
    If we change "god" with "supreme leader" how is this different from North Korea?
    (other than the leader of North Korea, supreme or not, actually exists)

  17. #375
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    How on earth does one calculate the probability of different values for physical constants?
    Well it depends on the particular physical constant, initial condition, physical law, etc. That is why each value I offered was accompanied by a link that cited peer-reviewed papers by physicists explaining (in admittedly technical detail) how that value was determined.




    To give a very brief example of how this is actually done, I'll consult the section on the mass ratio of up and down quarks:

    According to the Standard Model of particle physics, the proton is composed of the two up quarks and one down quark (uud), whereas the neutron is composed of one up quark and two down quarks (udd). Thus we could define the neutron and proton in terms of their quark constituents. The reason the neutron is heavier than the proton is that the down quark has a mass of 10 MeV, which is 4 Mev more than the up quark. This overcompensates by about 1.3 MeV for the ~2.7 MeV for the contribution of the electric charge of the proton to its mass. (Most of the mass of the proton and neutron, however, is due to gluon exchange between the quarks.) [Hogan, section III-A] The quark masses range from 6 MeV for the up quark to 180,000 MeV for the top quark (Peacock 1999: 216). Thus a 1.42 MeV increase in the neutron mass – which would correspond to a 1.42 MeV increase in the down quark mass – is only a mere one part in 126,000 of the total range of quark masses, resulting in a one-sided fine_tuning of about one part in 126,000. Further, since the down quark mass must be greater than zero, its total life-permitting range is 0 to 11.4 MeV, providing a total two-sided fine-tuning of about one part in 18,000 of the range of quark masses.

    Which calculates the one tail probability within the range of quark masses as part of the longer discussion about quark mass raios.



    Or, another great example for the stellar production of carbon and oxygen fine tuning would be be:

    We performed stellar model calculations for atypical massive, intermediate-mass, and low-mass star with masses 20, 5, and 1.3 h, respectively. The stars are followed from the onset of H-burning until the third thermal pulse in the AGB, or until the core temperature reaches 10^9K in the case of the 20M star (the nuclear network is not sufficient to go beyond this phase). For the 1.3M star, which loses its envelope by stellar winds during the thermal-pulse phase, the maximum C and O abundances in the He-burning region have been extracted. By taking the maximum abundances in this region, we have a measure of how much the envelope of the star can be enriched by C or O, irrespective of how efficient the dredge-up of heavy elements is compared with our model.

    For the three stellar masses, the evolution is calculated with different values of the resonance energy in the triple-alpha reaction within a range to cover variations in the strength of the strong and Coulomb interaction up to 0.5 and 4 %, respectively. The resulting modifications in the C and O abundances are shown (Fig. 1) with respect to the case, where the standard value of the resonance energy has been used (i.e., with no variations of the strength of the strong or Coulomb interaction). Because each shift in the resonance energy can be identified with a variation in the strength of the N-N or Coulomb interaction, we scaled the upper and lower ordinate with variations in these quantities. Our calculations indicate that the behavior of the residual alpha-alpha interaction, and thus that of the resonance energy of the O2+ state, is expected to lie somewhere between the predictions of two of our effective N-N interactions, the MN (10, 11) and the MHN (12) forces. Therefore, we show the abundances calculated only with these two effective N-N interactions (Fig. 1).

    A saturation of the C production is reached with increasing N-N interaction (very pronounced for the 5M star) because no alpha particles are available below the He-burning front. Thus, the star does not gain additional energy from the 12C(a, y)16O reaction. The stellar core contracts more rapidly and C-destroying 12C+12C reactions ignite earlier. For O, a similar behavior can be observed with decreasing N-N interaction strength. Because the temperatures where the triple-alpha reactions set in are enhanced with decreasing N-N force, the temperatures below the He-burning shell are much higher than in the standard case, and 16O+a reactions can destroy the previously generated O more efficiently than in the standard case (0 %).

    We conclude that a change of more than 0.5 % in the strength of the strong interaction or more than 4 % change in the strength of the Coulomb force would destroy either nearly all C or all O in every star. This implies that irrespective of stellar evolution the contribution of each star to the abundance of C or O in the ISM would be negligible. Therefore, for the above cases the creation of carbon-based life in our universe would be strongly disfavoured. The anthropically allowed strengths of the strong and electromagnetic forces also constrain the Higgs vacuum expectation value (25) and yield tighter constraint on the quark masses than do the constraints from light nuclei (26). Therefore, the results of this work are relevant not only for the anthropic cosmological principle (27), but also for the mathematical design of fundamental elementary particle theories.
    https://www.tuwien.ac.at/fileadmin/t...pa/science.pdf

    [I should note that not all the math comes over well, so a read of the paper is worth your time.]



    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Second, the universe permits all sorts of things - galaxies, stars, planets - all of which appear in much greater abundance than life. On what basis do you say that the universe was finely-tuned for life?
    Please see my last post. Those categories (stars, planets, matter, etc) aren't mutually exclusive with life. All of those things being necessary for the production of life. If the universe doesn't permit stars or planets, or matter for that matter, life is not possible.

    [I also want to add a side note that the amount of X in a universe, provided it isn't zero, is irrelevant to this argument. We aren't talking about optimizing life in a given universe, but the odds of a universe allowing life at all within the realm of all possible universes.]

    Likewise we can dramatically broaden the premise to say "life is finely tuned to permit matter" (of which life is a subset) and we are still talking about a 1 in 10^10^80 chance. Slightly better, but still dramatically low odds.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #376
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    There's so much wrong in your post it's daunting to know where to start. I think I can sum up your faulty reasoning here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please see my last post. Those categories (stars, planets, matter, etc) aren't mutually exclusive with life. All of those things being necessary for the production of life. If the universe doesn't permit stars or planets, or matter for that matter, life is not possible.
    While this is true, it's also incomplete. Yes: in our universe stars create elements heavier than hydrogen, but insisting that this gives evidence of "tuning" is patently ridiculous. I explained this before (which you either ignored or haven't gotten to yet), but it's still the same bad reasoning.

    If we assume there is some supernatural god being that's intelligent and doing the so-called fine tuning then we should immediately be asking ourselves why they're such an incompetent doofus. To be sure, stars creating the building blocks of molecules and over BILLIONS of years eventually forming innumerable planets that failed to be life-supporting (gas giants. frozen worlds. fiery worlds. etc) tells us that the being doing the tuning chose a method of doing so that is inefficient to cosmic magnitudes.

    To prove the universe is fine tuned, you have to prove that there's a tuner. Otherwise, "natural causes" provides a vastly superior answer in every conceivable way.

    Again, there is literally an INFINITE expanse of empty space/vacuum that's utterly lethal to life. Insisting the same universe is "fine tuned" for life is to ignore evidence and reason.

  19. #377
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Thus a 1.42 MeV increase in the neutron mass – which would correspond to a 1.42 MeV increase in the down quark mass – is only a mere one part in 126,000 of the total range of quark masses, resulting in a one-sided fine_tuning of about one part in 126,000.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We conclude that a change of more than 0.5 % in the strength of the strong interaction or more than 4 % change in the strength of the Coulomb force would destroy either nearly all C or all O in every star.
    Probability is calculated by comparing the number of favourable outcomes with the number of total outcomes. For our universe and its constants, the value is 1 across the board. On what basis do you claim that any other values for the constants are even possible in order to claim that the current value is highly improbable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I also want to add a side note that the amount of X in a universe, provided it isn't zero, is irrelevant to this argument. We aren't talking about optimizing life in a given universe, but the odds of a universe allowing life at all within the realm of all possible universes.
    I don't think it's irrelevant. There might be arrangements of constants which allow for significantly more life to occur. Wouldn't such a universe be clearly more life-oriented in its design than this one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    All of those things being necessary for the production of life.
    No, all of those things allow for life to occur. You again appear to lead the evidence to your desired conclusion. Just because the nature of the universe allows life to happen in no way demonstrates that it is finely-tuned for the purpose of allowing life to occur.

    BTW, how do you explain the origin of life? As a natural occurrence in a life-permitting universe, or was some intervention by god necessary in order to jump-start the actual life in the previously lifeless universe?

  20. #378
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I also want to add a side note that the amount of X in a universe, provided it isn't zero, is irrelevant to this argument. We aren't talking about optimizing life in a given universe, but the odds of a universe allowing life at all within the realm of all possible universes.
    If your argument is "our universe, completely at random or for reasons we cannot yet explain but are using science to delve into, can support life on one planet so far that we know" then you've proven your point. Congrats.

    If your argument is that there is in any way some being doing the fine tuning then everything you've posted is 100% irreverent. Because it's circular reasoning: the tuner evidences to tuning which evidences the tuner ad nauseum. You have to break out of the fallacy by providing evidence for the tuner.

    So do you claim there is some being doing the alleged fine tuning of our universe or do you hold that we don't know/science is working on it/likely not?

  21. #379
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please see my last post. Those categories (stars, planets, matter, etc) aren't mutually exclusive with life. All of those things being necessary for the production of life. If the universe doesn't permit stars or planets, or matter for that matter, life is not possible.

    [I also want to add a side note that the amount of X in a universe, provided it isn't zero, is irrelevant to this argument. We aren't talking about optimizing life in a given universe, but the odds of a universe allowing life at all within the realm of all possible universes.]

    Likewise we can dramatically broaden the premise to say "life is finely tuned to permit matter" (of which life is a subset) and we are still talking about a 1 in 10^10^80 chance. Slightly better, but still dramatically low odds.

    Though you point about things necessary for this universe to exist is true, "ALL" one would have to do is leave Earth to find out our universe is:

    Hostile to life!!!

    If it was indeed "fined tuned for life" there would be life other than on earth and we would have found evidence of it by now. Our solar system has other planets in the "Goldilocks" zone for instance. Before anyone says "there could be life on Mars or Europa", think about it. What does "fine tuned for life" mean? Some bacteria on a moon doesn't qualify (assuming any exists) as "fine tuned". There should be all sorts of life all over if it really were the case.

    The only known life:
    on Earth

    The only known life:
    ALL "left handed"

    The only known life:
    ALL share DNA and a common lineage.

    This is an example of "fine tuned"?????
    More like, this universe allows or "tolerates" life, but it definitely is not here to promote life or it's currently failing!!!

    Not unlike God (Christian) has only managed to attract a very small percentage of believers out of all humans that have ever lived.

    If Christianity were true why do the vast majority of humans that ever lived disagree? God would know the objections, why wouldn't he/couldn't he overcome them, since he wants "all to be saved".. It makes no sense.
    Freewill is not the answer to this question.
    I have never heard a reasonable/plausible answer to this...

  22. #380
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If it was indeed "fined tuned for life" there would be life other than on earth and we would have found evidence of it by now.
    When a physicist uses the term "fine tuned in relation to life" he isn't saying that the universe was optimized for life such that it should be abundant. IE, he isn't arguing that these are the "best" or "perfect" values.

    Rather, he is simplying noting that the relatively small set of values that would allow life to even be possible at all, in any part of the universe, is incredibly small when compared to the large possible set of values that the universe could have had.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For our universe and its constants, the value is 1 across the board. On what basis do you claim that any other values for the constants are even possible in order to claim that the current value is highly improbable?
    Why do you think that the value is 1 across the board? Do you mean it is 1 now because the values have already been determined? Or 1 because those specific set of values neccessarily are what they are?


    I base that argument on the same reasoning the physics references quoted based it on. The values of the physical constants of the universe are not goverened by the specific physical laws of our universe and, as you can see from the arXiv link, widely held to have a range of probabilistic values.

    To give a bit more weight, we can consult the late Prof. Hawking:

    "M theory cannot predict the parameters of the standard model...the parameters can have any values. So much for string theory predicting the fine structure constant...even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence. . . . So to come back to the question. . . Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically permitted location."
    S. W. Hawking, “Cosmology from the Top Down,” paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting, U. C. Davis, May 29, 2003.


    As I pointed out earlier Penrose calculates that String theory allows 10^500 different possible universes, even if we maintain the same physical laws, which, as Hawking points out, isn't a necessity either. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0303194


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    There might be arrangements of constants which allow for significantly more life to occur. Wouldn't such a universe be clearly more life-oriented in its design than this one?
    Sure, though I haven't seen that argued anywhere..and?

    This argument is about the range of possible outcomes that permit life, of which the above would constitute one possible universe of the set. It is an interesting thought experiment, but not related to the premises of the argument. None of the premises claim that this universe is optimized for life, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, all of those things allow for life to occur.
    These two statements appear to be ontologically identical. Would life exist without matter formation? No. Does matter formation allow life? Yes. How is that meaningfully different?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Just because the nature of the universe allows life to happen in no way demonstrates that it is finely-tuned for the purpose of allowing life to occur.
    I think you are using the term finely-tuned incorrectly here. You are using it with an inferrence towards intent. I am using it in the precisely defined way offered initially: "[A] physical constant is fine-tuned if the probability of the values that permit life within the population of total possible values is greater than 5 sigma."

    For the values referenced, do they fit that definition or not?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    BTW, how do you explain the origin of life?
    I thought you wanted to stick to one argument at a time? This would seem to be a red herring to this argument, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    To prove the universe is fine tuned, you have to prove that there's a tuner.
    Only if we use the term "fine-tuning" in an incorrect manner. As stated, I am using it in the precisely defined way offered initially: "[A] physical constant is fine-tuned if the probability of the values that permit life within the population of total possible values is greater than 5 sigma."

    For the values referenced, do they fit that definition or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by zhav
    Again, there is literally an INFINITE expanse of empty space/vacuum that's utterly lethal to life.
    Context Zhav. That is a neat factoid that is utterly irrelevant to this thread. The argument I put forward is about a binary outcome of a possible universe [permits life, does not permit life], not about its relative optimization, or aesthetic design, or any of that.

    Please stick to the context of the argument presented, not your own inference about where it is going.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •