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 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 435
  1. #401
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    There’s different types of spiritual experiences. Some of which are not only non-contradictory, but are highly practical and unitive across all faiths. Such experiences present the person with “more reality and truth than we ordinarily experience in everyday life.”
    Again, I'm seeing a lot of claiming, but no supporting. When you say that the person is presented with more reality and truth, what support do you have for that truth, and what makes one rationally justified in believing it?

  2. #402
    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
    When you say that the person is presented with more reality and truth, what support do you have for that truth, and what makes one rationally justified in believing it?
    1. "Mystical awareness confers an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer.
    2. Every tradition makes the point that this certainty is total, undeniable, clear, and eternal.
    3. One cannot doubt the reality of the experience while in the midst of it.
    4. We all doubt all kinds of experiences we have in life — we doubt our fundamental subjectivity — but it is not possible to doubt mystical phenomena."
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  3. #403
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. "Mystical awareness confers an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer.
    2. Every tradition makes the point that this certainty is total, undeniable, clear, and eternal.
    3. One cannot doubt the reality of the experience while in the midst of it.
    4. We all doubt all kinds of experiences we have in life — we doubt our fundamental subjectivity — but it is not possible to doubt mystical phenomena."
    Soooo ... no support, then?

  4. #404
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It still comes down to, if the parameters were different, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    This is broadly called the anthropic principle. It is true as far as it goes, but I don't think it really address the explanation of why. If I dropped the plunger on a stick of TNT underneath our feet and nothing happened, we wouldn't answer the question, "what happened" with "well if it had gone off, we wouldn't be here talking about it."

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Big stretch to say the ONLY reason the universe has the qualities it has is because of purposeful intent.
    I don't think I am saying that initially. I'm saying there are three possible explanations;

    1) Pure chance, they just happen to be in that narrow zone that allows for matter formation and life.

    2) Necessity. There is a governing principle. They have to be these particular values. No other values were possible. Something akin to the die only having threes on all sides.

    3) Design. This is the intent option.


    I'm certainly open to another option, or an argument for 1 and 2, but I've never seen anyone offer a fourth coherent option and the other two require appealing to some pretty unlikely scenarios.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ok but, the only place in the universe we are aware of that could support human life is earth.
    Sure, that we are aware of. I'm not sure how that is really relevant. I can fine tune an engine for performance, it doesn't mean it move the car sideways. Just because we fine tune something within the range of possible outcomes doesn't mean that a) that is the perfect fine tuning or b) that that means that every possible thing related to that outcome is realized.

    For example, I might fine tune my perscription for a cancer patient to make them healthier. That doesn't mean that the perscription is perfect for that aim. And it doesn't mean that it will cure a staph infection if they have it.

    There might even be a drug that does both. Cures the cancer and the staph, but I don't pick it because of another concern. Say it causes kidney damage. When we consider the kinds of questions being asked here, I think it is important that we understand the full range of implications.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    If the purpose of a project is to create an environment in which fish might survive and flourish, then why design a Karaoke lounge in which an aquarium sits?
    Really, comic sans? ;-) I kid of course.

    I understand that temptation, perhaps my response was overly antagonistic, I might have been letting Zhav get to me. The intuition makes sense, what I question is the underlying assumption. Why would we assume that the primary purpose of creation is an environment that maximizes livable space?

    My day job is managing project managers, it is not uncommon for a PM to elevate a requirement in the project over others (which is technically my job, not theirs). There isn't, however, anything in this argument that would imply that it was the primary purpose to maximize life. If anything, I would argue that it seems to be a base necessity that allows for other requirements. Kind of like the foundation of the house being necessary, but not the ultimate goal of the construction project.

    That inference though is somewhat natural. It is, perhaps a bit more accurate to rephrase the premise as fine tuned to allow for life rather than fine tuned for life if that makes sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The argument you've presented doesn't support such a conclusion.
    Well, that is, in part, because that isn't what the argument is putting forward. Rather, it is putting forward that the best explanation of the fine tuning of the universe is design. That there is fine tuning is presented via the support of several physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers. Which is why I asked if they were not the kind of support you were looking for, what kind are you interested in?

    Partly, though, I think your concern comes from the fact that we haven't addressed the entire argument. Rather, for simplicity, we are with premise 1 for now. Is there an issue with premise 1? If not, we can move to premise 2. Are the only three explanations for this phenomenon, design, necessity, or chance?
    "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.


  5. #405
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Partly, though, I think your concern comes from the fact that we haven't addressed the entire argument.
    No, my concern is that you appear to be avoiding answering some pretty straight-forward questions:
    1. What support do you have that the universe was finely-tuned for human life, since this is an implicit claim in your use of the fine-tuning argument as support for your belief in the Xtian deity?
    2. What is your view on the origins of live on our planet? As a natural occurrence in a life-permitting universe, or was some intervention by the Xtian deity necessary in order to jump-start the actual life in the previously lifeless universe?

    If all you're going to do is refuse to answer these and claim they're irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument, then we'll conclude that all the argument supports is that the universe appears to be finely-tuned for the creation of black holes, and that the occurrence of life is just a happy accident. Take your pick.

  6. #406
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Another question:
    Since you offered the three arguments (KCA, Fine-Tuning, Morality) as why you think your belief in the Xtian deity is rationally justified, were these the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place?

  7. #407
    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
    Soooo ... no support, then?
    The support for the mystic that validates the truth they realize is an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer. Their support is also strengthened by a scientific empirical process (method) that is rigorous and highly disciplined. Thus, it is repeatable for those who want to obtain evidence of this truth first hand.

    If you or I want support for something that requires a microscope, we would have to be willing to open our eyes and look through a microscope in order to observe what is on the petri dish. If you or I want support/evidence for the truth that is realized by mystics, we can choose to embark on a similar disciplined process in order to experience this truth directly.

    On a slightly different note, it is interesting to note that science is now giving us data to support what mystics have been saying for ages.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  8. #408
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The support for the mystic that validates the truth they realize is an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer. Their support is also strengthened by a scientific empirical process (method) that is rigorous and highly disciplined. Thus, it is repeatable for those who want to obtain evidence of this truth first hand.

    If you or I want support for something that requires a microscope, we would have to be willing to open our eyes and look through a microscope in order to observe what is on the petri dish. If you or I want support/evidence for the truth that is realized by mystics, we can choose to embark on a similar disciplined process in order to experience this truth directly.

    On a slightly different note, it is interesting to note that science is now giving us data to support what mystics have been saying for ages.
    On what planet is any of this support?

  9. #409
    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
    On what planet is any of this support?
    On the planet where love continues to change hearts and minds.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  10. #410
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    On the planet where love continues to change hearts and minds.
    Thankfully, you're absolutely wrong, and this world is able to benefit from love without having to base it on nonsense deepities as support for more nonsense deepities.

  11. #411
    Registered User

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

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    On the planet where love continues to change hearts and minds.
    Yep, the KKK is just full of love for all mankind. Serbian Christians probably lovingly prayed to Jesus before slaughtering Bosnian Muslims. Hutus I'm sure had love in their hearts as they lopped off the heads of hundreds of thousands of their Tutsi countrymen.

    Praise the Lord!

  12. #412
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is broadly called the anthropic principle. It is true as far as it goes, but I don't think it really address the explanation of why.
    I have never heard a convincing why, but I am still listening and appreciate your ideas on the subject.

    ---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think I am saying that initially. I'm saying there are three possible explanations;

    1) Pure chance, they just happen to be in that narrow zone that allows for matter formation and life.

    2) Necessity. There is a governing principle. They have to be these particular values. No other values were possible. Something akin to the die only having threes on all sides.

    3) Design. This is the intent option.


    I'm certainly open to another option, or an argument for 1 and 2, but I've never seen anyone offer a fourth coherent option and the other two require appealing to some pretty unlikely scenarios.
    Interesting. I should Google a witty response.....not my style though, so

    If a "something/someone" did create the universe why would that have to be the intent. Why couldn't such a "being" have created it by accident or the result of some other "thought experiment" (like God created thru thought). Or even created the universe without even knowing?

    Or like inflation in the early universe, something happened that won't happen again?

    Or if God made the universe fellowship with humans you would expect it to be easy to figure out?

    Or maybe if we could find that 96% of the universe that is missing, it would give us better understanding of this question.

    You make a great point though, I shall have to ponder it further when I have some time and try again, maybe I will come up with a more solid rebut

    ---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    For example, I might fine tune my perscription for a cancer patient to make them healthier. That doesn't mean that the perscription is perfect for that aim. And it doesn't mean that it will cure a staph infection if they have it.
    Now, on this point, you need to try harder cause this ain't "passing no mustard" (I say that for MT).
    This universe is very hostile to our kind of life.
    When the Earth's magnetic field flips next time there seems to be some speculation our protecting from cosmic rays could be greatly diminished.
    The chances of another dinosaur killing sized meteor hitting is pretty high.
    Once you leave Earth even with all our protective gear on space still negatively affects health.
    Hell a few hrs out in the sun and you will get fried.

    "Fine tuned for life" this universe is not.
    Now the math you cite for the needed parameters I'm sure is correct. But most of what we know about the universe is hostile to our kind of life.

    ---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    On a slightly different note, it is interesting to note that science is now giving us data to support what mystics have been saying for ages.
    To which data are you referring to?

  13. #413
    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 Rodriguez View Post
    Yep, the KKK is just full of love for all mankind. Serbian Christians probably lovingly prayed to Jesus before slaughtering Bosnian Muslims. Hutus I'm sure had love in their hearts as they lopped off the heads of hundreds of thousands of their Tutsi countrymen.
    As I honor the lives of soldiers across all branches of the military who died in defense of the rights you and I enjoy on this Memorial day , your words make me pause and appreciate religious freedom in America and the protected right of Freedom of Religion and worship and the Rule of Law that punishes violent religious intolerance. I consider myself privileged to live in America where the right to religious freedom and worship is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Founders were brilliant.

    If you would like to start a thread on the principle of unconditional love, feel free.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  14. #414
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think I am saying that initially. I'm saying there are three possible explanations;

    1) Pure chance, they just happen to be in that narrow zone that allows for matter formation and life.

    2) Necessity. There is a governing principle. They have to be these particular values. No other values were possible. Something akin to the die only having threes on all sides.

    3) Design. This is the intent option.


    I'm certainly open to another option, or an argument for 1 and 2, but I've never seen anyone offer a fourth coherent option and the other two require appealing to some pretty unlikely scenarios.
    There is fourth option and it makes as much sense as any of the others. Multiverse. If there are an infinite number of separate realities then anything that could happen will happen so as long it's possible for life to form in a universe, at least one of the universes will have life in it. And we happen to be in one of the universes that has life in it.

  15. #415
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    start a thread on the principle of unconditional love
    You already brought up "unconditional love" back in post # 330, but didn't support it. Could you please define and support?

    ---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If there are an infinite number of separate realities then anything that could happen will happen so as long it's possible for life to form in a universe, at least one of the universes will have life in it. And we happen to be in one of the universes that has life in it.
    I think this may fall under #1 - chance. In any case, there's nothing about the fine-tuning argument which necessarily supports #3 - the conclusion that the universe was designed for human life. It therefore fails, just like KCA, to justify belief in the Xtian deity.

  16. #416
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I think this may fall under #1 - chance.
    No, it's not chance. Under this theory, life existing in a universe is inevitable as long as it's possible. So if something is 100% certain to happen, it doesn't happen by chance.

    And this option backs up your side of the debate. It does show how a universe can exist that supports life without a designer.

  17. #417
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it's not chance. Under this theory, life existing in a universe is inevitable as long as it's possible. So if something is 100% certain to happen, it doesn't happen by chance.

    And this option backs up your side of the debate. It does show how a universe can exist that supports life without a designer.
    I agree both times. This is a possible explanation and it couldn't be chance by definition.
    The argument against of course involves entropy. I find it odd on the one hand I am told:
    "all physical laws break down at the point of the Big Bang"
    yet some how one can not escape entropy even when "all know physical law" no longer applies?? Is entropy not a physical law?
    If not, why does it apply at all?
    If so how does it not break down as with "all other law"?

    Perhaps we put to much "human spin" on the QUESTION as opposed to the answer?
    https://www.pantheism.net/paul/cause.htm#5
    "The arguments from cause and purpose stem from a confusion of language. They apply the concepts to realms where, by definition, they can have no validity."

    Maybe Hawkins is right (same source):
    "Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:"

    Or let's say there is a God that "caused" the Universe (same source):
    "In a sense the theist argument about a first cause cuts the ground from under itself.
    Everything, it argues, requires a cause. To avoid infinite regress, there must be a first cause.
    But this first cause is something that has no cause.
    Therefore not everything requires a cause.
    Therefore the premise is invalid.
    Again, if there is a being which does not require a cause, why should this being not be the universe itself?"

    I also remember in this thread Squatch saying there does not have to be a temporal component involved with a cause and effect, and the effect "can" proceed the cause.
    Assuming this is the case, why can't something cause itself, since it existed before the cause?

    Or, as the universe is larger than we can see with telescopes, just because the it seems to be expanding in the part we can see, how can we know that all matter/energy was at one point in the past (singularity)?
    IOW, I get it is getting expanding now, how does that prove it all started at one point?
    This is how "cosmic inflation" became necessary (not unlike dark energy and dark matter becoming necessary for human understanding).
    If inflation didn't happen, the "BB singularity" may not have happened at all.

    I don't believe there is a good explanation for how inflation could have actually happened.
    Like why it would start or stop, never to happen again???

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think I am saying that initially. I'm saying there are three possible explanations;

    1) Pure chance, they just happen to be in that narrow zone that allows for matter formation and life.

    2) Necessity. There is a governing principle. They have to be these particular values. No other values were possible. Something akin to the die only having threes on all sides.

    3) Design. This is the intent option.

    How about our universe' existence being a probability (as in quantum mechanics)?
    Something like virtual particles just coming into existence "with no cause"????

    Then not all possibilities have to be realized. No infinite regress. No entropy. Still had a beginning.

    Other thoughts:
    The universe IS everything, that is, was, or will be. To discuss a being "outside" of the universe is to deny the meaning of universe.

    If the BB happened, there was no before the BB.
    No entity can act when there is no before or we are back to "time" started existing at the BB, not necessarily the universe had a beginning?

    Again, I am sensing the "humanizing" of the question. Kind of like asking:
    "where is north of the north pole?"

    Obviously there is no such place. The same is true in this case.

    There is no "outside of the universe", as the universe is "ALL" there is. That is the definition of universe!
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/universe?s=t
    "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm."

    There is no "before time" as time did not exist before time.

    The statements are nonsensical but treated as some kind of wisdom when discussed in a theistic sense.
    Last edited by Belthazor; May 31st, 2018 at 03:54 PM.

  18. #418
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have never heard a convincing why, but I am still listening and appreciate your ideas on the subject.
    Which is certainy fair, I haven't detailed my defense after all ;-)

    Kidding aside, even if we all agreed that there was no convincing explanation of why, we all, to a man were completely dumbfounded without a single hypothesis, the question would still remain. We would still logically be able to ask why the values are what they are, even if we can't explain the answer, which is why the anthropic principle doesn't really get us very far.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    If a "something/someone" did create the universe why would that have to be the intent. Why couldn't such a "being" have created it by accident or the result of some other "thought experiment" (like God created thru thought).
    I don't see any reason that that would have to have been the intent. But if the intent of the designer is irrelevant, we are back appealing to chance. It just happens to be chance that the designer produced life in this universe. Again, given the ridiculously fantastic values we are talking about, I don't think that argument becomes very appealing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belathazor
    Or maybe if we could find that 96% of the universe that is missing, it would give us better understanding of this question.
    I don't think that that would help in the manner one might expect. The Dark Matter/Dark Energy question is a question at a later stage in physics. The fundamental constants are a more basic question.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    You make a great point though, I shall have to ponder it further when I have some time and try again, maybe I will come up with a more solid rebut
    I have every confidence that you reply will be stimulating and interesting. Looking forward to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    This universe is very hostile to our kind of life.
    Compared to what? The examples you use are relatively insignficant compared to what we are discussing. Radiation is certainly not pleasant, but it is certainly vastly more life permitting than a universe where no matter, not Hydrogen, not even Baryonic particles could exist. Its a categorical difference between life being possible but hard and life being impossible.

    The parrallel argument that "it could be better" I don't think applies to the kind of categoraical difference described. It would be like seeing a tornado go through a junkyard, discovering a 747 afterwards and then dismissing it because "it's not an F35."

    And, importantly, even if we expand the range of criteria to all the values where matter is permissible, not even complex matter or long lived universes, just the kind of universes where matter can form, even for an instant, we are talking 1 part in 10^10^118. Still more zeros in that number than twice the number of particles in our universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bethazor
    How about our universe' existence being a probability (as in quantum mechanics)?
    Something like virtual particles just coming into existence "with no cause"????
    The universe's initial conditions being set by probability would relate to option 1) pure chance, they just happen to be in that narrow zone that allows for matter formation and life.

    The difference between that and the kind of virtual particle argument is that the latter happens trillions and trillions of times per second, so eventually the odds are going to be that something happens. The former is a single selection. 1 draw in a bag of 10^10^123 options.

    [Incidentally virtual particles don't come into existence without a cause, they are caused by fluctuations within the underlying quantum field.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    The universe IS everything, that is, was, or will be. To discuss a being "outside" of the universe is to deny the meaning of universe.
    I don't think that that is a definition of universe in common use within physics. Within physics this universe would mean "the entirety of a connected spacetime manifold.” Universes are defined by the extent of their dimensional sets, not by their ontological categorization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    If the BB happened, there was no before the BB.
    Temporally no, causally yes. We can have a causal predecessor to the BB while recognizing that time has its origin at t=0. There are a half dozen models mentioned earlier in thread that rely on this distinction.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    1. What support do you have that the universe was finely-tuned for human life, since this is an implicit claim in your use of the fine-tuning argument as support for your belief in the Xtian deity?
    The premise you are discussing is: "1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design."

    Fine Tuning is defined in post 368 as:

    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.

    I want to offer this clarification because your phrasing does not match the argument presented.


    With that said, I posted support earlier in thread. From post 368;

    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.


    Post 375 includes additional examples as part of the illustration of the relatively well known physical concept of fine-tuning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Future
    2. What is your view on the origins of live on our planet?
    I didn't avoid answering this question, the question is a red herring. The argument presented is not about the beginning of life on this planet. If this question relates to one of the premises, please clarify.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Another question:
    Since you offered the three arguments (KCA, Fine-Tuning, Morality) as why you think your belief in the Xtian deity is rationally justified, were these the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place?
    They were not. But this thread isn't about how I came to belief, it is about whether theistic belief is rational.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is fourth option and it makes as much sense as any of the others. Multiverse. If there are an infinite number of separate realities then anything that could happen will happen so as long it's possible for life to form in a universe, at least one of the universes will have life in it. And we happen to be in one of the universes that has life in it.
    Well that technically isn't a fourth option, but is part of the chance variant. In that variant the chance is increased because the number of samples drawn from the population is dramatically increased. Like your odds of winning the lottery are increased if you buy a million tickets.

    There are a couple of problems with it as a defense though (which would have been covered later as this relates as an objection to premise 2 imo), the first is that there are no current multi-verse models that permit anything beyond a tiny handful of budding universes and all of those models have significant observational obstacles to overcome (see KCA argument earlier for more detail).

    More fundamentally, the idea of an infinite multi-verse becomes somewhat silly quickly. I had a physics professor once tell me that if an infinite shows up in your work, it is a sign you've done something wrong. For example, if we really had an infinite multi-verse there exists a universe where Mickey Mouse Club House, quite literally, exists in the real world. Not as a cartoon, but as the actual nature of the universe. It is the problems of infinites. If there are infinite universes, by definition all possible things actually exist, and that gets over the top really quickly.
    "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.


  19. #419
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well that technically isn't a fourth option, but is part of the chance variant. In that variant the chance is increased because the number of samples drawn from the population is dramatically increased. Like your odds of winning the lottery are increased if you buy a million tickets.
    But I believe the multiverse hypothesis is that the number of universes is infinite so going by the lottery ticket analogy, a new drawing happens every week for rest of eternity and of course eventually your number will be drawn so the odds of winning are 100%. So it's certainty, not chance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are a couple of problems with it as a defense though (which would have been covered later as this relates as an objection to premise 2 imo), the first is that there are no current multi-verse models that permit anything beyond a tiny handful of budding universes and all of those models have significant observational obstacles to overcome (see KCA argument earlier for more detail).
    But when you referred to the three options, you said "I'm saying there are three possible explanations" which indicates that to be an option, it must be possible. So unless one is going to posit that it's impossible that there are an infinite number of alternative universes, it must be considered possible and therefore "infinite alternative universes" must be added to the list of "possible explanations".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    More fundamentally, the idea of an infinite multi-verse becomes somewhat silly quickly. I had a physics professor once tell me that if an infinite shows up in your work, it is a sign you've done something wrong. For example, if we really had an infinite multi-verse there exists a universe where Mickey Mouse Club House, quite literally, exists in the real world. Not as a cartoon, but as the actual nature of the universe. It is the problems of infinites. If there are infinite universes, by definition all possible things actually exist, and that gets over the top really quickly.
    I definitely agree that the ramification of infinite universes is mind-boggling. But then pretty much every alternative option is mind-boggling as well if one really thinks about them in-depth.

    You can level criticisms to the multi-verse hypothesis but as long as it's possible, it must be considered an option.
    Last edited by mican333; June 1st, 2018 at 10:36 AM.

  20. #420
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which is certainy fair, I haven't detailed my defense after all ;-)
    Detailed yes. Explained to a convincing degree,...........well......

    still listening though

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Kidding aside, even if we all agreed that there was no convincing explanation of why, we all, to a man were completely dumbfounded without a single hypothesis, the question would still remain. We would still logically be able to ask why the values are what they are, even if we can't explain the answer, which is why the anthropic principle doesn't really get us very far.
    Is this a proof read error or I am not getting the message here??
    To date no convincing explanation is complete and ya, why not ask why the values are what they are?

    ---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think that that would help in the manner one might expect. The Dark Matter/Dark Energy question is a question at a later stage in physics. The fundamental constants are a more basic question.
    Perhaps, but given we know almost nothing about either you seem to be reaching here.....

    ---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Compared to what? The examples you use are relatively insignficant compared to what we are discussing. Radiation is certainly not pleasant, but it is certainly vastly more life permitting than a universe where no matter, not Hydrogen, not even Baryonic particles could exist. Its a categorical difference between life being possible but hard and life being impossible.
    Or God could have made radiation less deadly to humans/life/.
    Or life more accustomed to radiation.

    Any way you look at it, only the earth has been known to support life.
    Really, "fine tuned" looses most of it's meaning if it only applies to constants that make matter possible etc, while in almost every other case except Earth, the universe would kill said life!

    ---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Compared to what?
    Well, you know, a universe that wasn't trying to kill every known form of life

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The universe's initial conditions being set by probability would relate to option 1) pure chance, they just happen to be in that narrow zone that allows for matter formation and life.

    The difference between that and the kind of virtual particle argument is that the latter happens trillions and trillions of times per second, so eventually the odds are going to be that something happens. The former is a single selection. 1 draw in a bag of 10^10^123 options.

    [Incidentally virtual particles don't come into existence without a cause, they are caused by fluctuations within the underlying quantum field.]
    Uh huh. First you say it would be "pure chance", then you say that VP are caused. That would not be chance would it?
    And,
    what causes the "underlying quantum field" to act as it does?

    ---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Temporally no, causally yes. We can have a causal predecessor to the BB while recognizing that time has its origin at t=0. There are a half dozen models mentioned earlier in thread that rely on this distinction.
    If the is no time between cause and effect, how would one discern what caused a given event?

    ---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think that that is a definition of universe in common use within physics. Within physics this universe would mean "the entirety of a connected spacetime manifold.” Universes are defined by the extent of their dimensional sets, not by their ontological categorization.
    Ummm, ya.
    Common usage among humans it means pretty much everything.
    Dictionary.com, Webster, etc match much closer to my comments than yours.

    But, what is the significance of the difference?

 

 
Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 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
  •