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 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12 18 19 20 21 22
Results 421 to 426 of 426
  1. #421
    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
    Temporally no, causally yes. We can have a causal predecessor to the BB while recognizing that time has its origin at t=0.
    So you are saying the BB is when time started. But something "caused" the BB, and that happened when time did not exist.
    Is this correct?

  2. Likes Rodriguez liked this post
  3. #422
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    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.
    That is one variant of a multi-verse hypothesis, but it isn't really one that physicists put forward. Virtually all models put forward have a finite set of 'branes' (sub-universes) that occur in the context of their model. There are some problems with the concept as you put it forward (which I don't mean to imply was incorrect) that make it untenable, one of which is that we need assume that this multi-verse is an actual infinite, ie it has already produced an infinite number of universes (or else we fall back to a chance argument). That is problematic because iterative processes (like false vacuum inflation) can only produce potential infinites, not actual infinites. It would be like counting to infinity. You can in theory do that, but you will never actually get to infinity.

    We don't need to go into it here (though I can if you want), but it also seems that the initial conditions required for a multi-verse to continue on, ad infinitum, and produce all possible values in its sub-branes (rather than clustering or repeating) are pretty fine tuned themselves. Perhaps even more fine tuned than the constants we are talking about. So I'm not sure it really gets us very far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    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".
    I think there are some compelling arguments (offerred earlier) as to why a infinite multi-verse is physically impossible. Even if we set those aside though, I don't think I said it shouldn't be added to the list. If I recall correctly, I said that it was a sub-component of "necessity." IE if we have an infinite number of drawings that cover all possible outcomes, then it is necessarily true that at least one universe would have the outcome we see.

    My objection was that it wasn't a fourth category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    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.
    There is a difference between mind boggling and absurdity though. Saying that, in actuality, there is an actual world where Mickey Mouse's club house is the objective reality of the universe stretchs a bit beyond just mind boggling.

    But I agree with your last sentence. Although I would maintain the mechanics make an actualized set of infinite universes as physically impossible, that isn't even the most compelling point imo. Rather, it is that it is so fantastically unlikely that it isn't a compelling explanation for the observed fine tuning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Detailed yes.
    I mean I have not detailed its defense. I've simply laid out the premises, explained some technical defintions, and offerred a defense of the physics concept of fine tuning.

    The next step, once we agree that those are the three possible explanations for the observed phenomenon is to explore each of them in detail as part of premise 2.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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?
    Let me try to rephrase it. Let's take one of those Sherlock Holmes style mind games I remember seeing as a kid. You are called in to investigate a dead body. It's a man hanging from a noose. All the doors and windows are locked from the inside. No one else has a key to the room. You look around and fnd that there were no chairs or tables in the room he could have used to get up to the noose, just a puddle of water on the floor. There are no injection marks or holes, he died from the hanging it appears.

    I remember puzzling over that for a long time as a kid, and I couldn't answer what happened exactly. But even then, I could get close by saying; there are only three possible explanations for his death. Suicide, Murder, Accident. I can rule out murder based on the inability to entry and accident based on the scenario design and probability. Thus suicide is the best explanation

    I certainly couldn't, at the time, tell you exactly how he did it, but I could tell you what category of activity it was.

    The same is true here. You are absolutely right that we can't detail the exact mechanics of the beginning of the universe, but that doesn't mean we can't rule out some categorical options.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Perhaps, but given we know almost nothing about either you seem to be reaching here.....
    No more so then it would be reach to ask whether or not the government has the power to levy income taxes because no one really knows how the IRS will interpret section 179 of the tax code this year.

    One of those is a foundational question, the other is a specific instance question based upon the foundational principles. Because we don't fully understand all the specific applications of a physical principle does not mean we can't talk about its underlying nature.

    We don't, for example, have a compelling model for fluid dynamics that explains shock dynamics, or even the annoying little waves that develop over time on gravel roads. Those deficiencies are not good reason for us to abandon a discussion of the different states of matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Or God could have made radiation less deadly to humans/life/.
    Ok, lets say He did. How does that affect our ability to adapt to climactic changes? The limitation of that ability would have a downstream effect on the ability of cities to form and thereby writing and civilization. Can you elaborate on the full magnitude of the change to our current world given that initial change?

    I realize that those questions are rhetorical in pratice, that is kind of my point. If you are going to maintain that better world would have been achieved if ony God had done X, you are hand waving a vast sea of assumptions. The outcomes of emergent systems are definitionally hard to predict, I think we should be wary thinking we can assume their outcomes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Really, "fine tuned" looses most of it's meaning if it only applies to constants that make matter possible
    Why? If, in order to get my lottery prize, I have to win three different drawings rather than just one, how does that make the odds of the first one any less remarkable?

    How does it applying just to matter make the appeal to chance any more palatable? We are still talking about about twice as many zeros than there particles in the entire universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Well, you know, a universe that wasn't trying to kill every known form of life
    But that isn't really a realistic comparison. You are comparing the observed result with a tiny, tiny fraction of the populations and determinging it isn't remarkable. It would be like only considering the times a coin flip lands on its side, and saying "this isn't that remarkable, it could have landed with the head upright on its side." If we artificially remove all the vast options of it being heads and tails we can think a side land is nothing special, but that isn't a good analysis of the population of optons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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?
    Those two statements aren't contradictory. If I pull a lottery ball out of a bag, the number is determined by pure chance. It doesn't mean its selection wasn't caused right?

    My bracketed comments were more a reference to your claim, which is popular on the internet, that virtual particles are uncaused. VPs' creation is governed by probability at the quantum level and brought about by fluctuations in the quantum field governed by Quantum Field Theory (a subset of Quantum Mechanics), a set of laws that describe our particular universe.

    What is most important for the analogy you put forward is that virtual particles are a repeating selection in statistical terms. It's like picking out a lottery ball then putting it back in and doing that trillions and trillions of times, you'll eventualy get the number you want.

    The initial conditions of the universe happens only once which makes appealing to probability fantastic.

    I should also point out the scale difference here. Any given fluctuation producing virtual particles is something like a 1 in 10^1000 (very broadly, this range obviously differs wildly depending on conditions). So the creation of a virtual particle, from a probability perspective is x*y in 10^1000 (where x is the size of the observed region and y is how long you observe it). This number gets really reasonable if you consider a moderately sized area over a sufficiently long time (and I mean like a hundredth of meter cubed for 1 second moderate).

    That pales in comparison to 1 in 10^10^123.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    If the is no time between cause and effect, how would one discern what caused a given event?
    Logical necessity. There is no time between a lot of causes and effects within our universen now and that doesn't cause a problem. First a technical example, when we alter an entangled particle, its partner changes instantaneously. There is no time betwen our change and the partner's change, but we know which is the cause and which is the effect.

    In a less technical example, if we pour a bucket of water into a pool there is no time between the pouring and the pool rising, but we know which caused which.

    More abstractly, we can distinguish between cause and effect by determining which has causally prior conditions containing the other. For example, we have A and B. B's definition is such that it can exist only if A does (iff A, b). A does not have such conditions as part of its definition. Therefore A causes B.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    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?
    No doubt, but common usage and technical usage differ all the time. Given that the discussion is a physics one, the physics usage is the more appropriate one. It's a lot like the idea of personhood in legal contexts. People lost their minds over SCOTUS' use of the word person in the Citizen's United case, but SCOTUS wasn't wrong, they were just using the more precise legal definition of person rather than the overly broad term people use in every day language.

    We need to rely on the more technical definition here otherwise any criticism of th argument on these grounds simply becomes a begging the question fallacy. You simply define God out of the picture. Essentially, you say God doesn't exist because He doesn't exist, which isn't a very compelling argument. [To be more precise, the argument becomes; a being outside of our universe doesn't exist becausewe define outside the universe as not existing]

    From a purely physics perspective this definition becomes self defeating. If we are trying to understand the origins of our spacetime, we can't preclude causation arising from outside of our spacetime without also insisting that our universe "created itself." That is a self-defeating proposition, especially in a universe that is finite in age and violates several basic physics principles about causation.
    "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.


  4. #423
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is one variant of a multi-verse hypothesis, but it isn't really one that physicists put forward.
    It's the one that I'm putting forward. Taken to its logical conclusion, as long as it's possible for life to exist in a universe, life WILL exist. As long as this kind of multiverse could possibly exist, there's a fourth option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We don't need to go into it here (though I can if you want), but it also seems that the initial conditions required for a multi-verse to continue on, ad infinitum, and produce all possible values in its sub-branes (rather than clustering or repeating) are pretty fine tuned themselves. Perhaps even more fine tuned than the constants we are talking about.
    It's not necessarily an either/or. Just because it produces all possible values does not mean that it produces them only once and avoids repetition or other effects of sheer randomness.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think there are some compelling arguments (offerred earlier) as to why a infinite multi-verse is physically impossible. Even if we set those aside though, I don't think I said it shouldn't be added to the list. If I recall correctly, I said that it was a sub-component of "necessity." IE if we have an infinite number of drawings that cover all possible outcomes, then it is necessarily true that at least one universe would have the outcome we see.
    Then maybe I don't understand what you mean. Here is the original description.

    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.

    To apply the die analogy to multiverse, it would say that every side of the die has a different number on it and the only reason that a three appeared is because the die is rolled so many times that eventually it shows up. If no other values were possible, then the die could never roll anything other than a three but of course the die has everything else along with the three and therefore there are an infinite number of other possible values.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There is a difference between mind boggling and absurdity though. Saying that, in actuality, there is an actual world where Mickey Mouse's club house is the objective reality of the universe stretchs a bit beyond just mind boggling.
    I think "mind boggling" is stronger than absurd. There's plenty that I think is absurd but doesn't boggle the mind.

    But I don't see why that which is absurd cannot be possible. And really, something being absurd seems pretty subjective. An atheist could argue that he is justified in thinking that an always-existing eternal being with no creator is absurd and it would probably be impossible to prove that he's wrong - one could only subjectively disagree with his subjective opinion that it's absurd. I doubt you could provide an objective standard for "absurd" so I'm not sure if absurdity really means anything in this situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But I agree with your last sentence. Although I would maintain the mechanics make an actualized set of infinite universes as physically impossible, that isn't even the most compelling point imo. Rather, it is that it is so fantastically unlikely that it isn't a compelling explanation for the observed fine tuning.
    "Fantastically unlikely" fits within the realm of "possible".

    And if it's true, it's a great explanation for the "observed" fine tuning.

    An analogy would be if there was a twenty sided die (this represents infinity but I want to keep the analogy simple) and if it rolls a twenty, life develops. So it's rolled again and again and it rolls a 1, then a 4, then a 17 and eventually it rolls a 20 and life develops. And the life concludes that the die was fine-tuned to roll a twenty. But of course it's just randomness that appears to be fine-tuning from the perspective of those who can't see the all of the other rolls that were also made.

    And if you don't want to accept infinite universes, how about quadrillion or some other huge number? Because all that has to happen is that the number of universes match the odds of life forming in a universe for it to be certainty that at least one universe develops life. If it's quadrillion to one that life will develop in a universe, then a quadrillion universes is all that is need to guarantee life in a universe and the need be no fine-tuning to ensure that life happens somewhere.
    Last edited by mican333; June 10th, 2018 at 10:45 AM.

  5. #424
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The premise you are discussing is: "1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design."
    ...
    I want to offer this clarification because your phrasing does not match the argument presented.
    Again, by using Fine-Tuning as rational justification for your belief in the Xtian deity, you are making the implicit claim that the universe was finely-tuned by said deity for human life on planet earth. Do you have any support for this claim?
    If you explicitly state that you are not making this claim as part of Fine-Tuning as support for the Xtian deity, then Fine-Tuning does not serve as rational justification for a belief in the Xtian deity, and the FTA's conclusion supports nothing more than "the universe appears to be finely-tuned for the creation of black holes".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Yes, by calling it a red herring and not answering, you are avoiding answering it. Far from a red herring, the question relates to the implied claim you are making that a deity finely-tuned the universe for human life on earth. Again, if you don't hold to the position that a deity finely-tuned the universe for human life on earth, please state so clearly, and we can dismiss the FTA as having no further conclusion than "the universe appears finely-tuned for the creation of black holes".

    Your avoidance of clarifying your position on the implicit claim of fine-tuning for human life and your position on the origins of life on earth is cause for concern because these are quite crucial aspects of using arguments such as KCA & FTA as support for any specific deity. These arguments themselves say nothing about the actual cause, and don't by themselves support your conclusion that the cause was the Xtian deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    They were not.
    Then why not present those reasons as your rational justification for believing in the Xtian deity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But this thread isn't about how I came to belief, it is about whether theistic belief is rational.
    You are essentially saying that those areas are mutually exclusive ... interesting. So the initial reasons for how you cam to belief were not rational, and your initial belief was not rationally justified? Did you only have rational justification for your belief in the Xtian deity once you were met with the three arguments you have listed here?
    Last edited by futureboy; June 10th, 2018 at 06:33 AM.

  6. #425
    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
    one of which is that we need assume that this multi-verse is an actual infinite, ie it has already produced an infinite number of universes (or else we fall back to a chance argument).
    Why would a limited number of multiverses be necessarily chance events?

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Even if we set those aside though, I don't think I said it shouldn't be added to the list. If I recall correctly, I said that it was a sub-component of "necessity."
    Actually what you said was:
    "Well that technically isn't a fourth option, but is part of the chance variant."

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No more so then it would be reach to ask whether or not the government has the power to levy income taxes because no one really knows how the IRS will interpret section 179 of the tax code this year.
    Wow....big stretch here.
    We know a whole lot about the gov't and the IRS.

    All we know of dark matter/energy (assuming they exist, and I don't believe they do) is they interact with gravity and nothing else we know of, correct?

    ---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why? If, in order to get my lottery prize, I have to win three different drawings rather than just one, how does that make the odds of the first one any less remarkable?
    "Fine Tuned" for life more than implies the universe showed much more than "allow" life on a spec of dust when the incredible vastness of the rest of the universe would kill said life. I don't see it "fine tuned" when the universe barely lets life exist at all.

    ---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that isn't really a realistic comparison. You are comparing the observed result with a tiny, tiny fraction of the populations and determinging it isn't remarkable.

    Ok, it's "remarkable"!!!!
    Now what?
    The universe is still by vast leaps/bounds/orders of magnitude more deadly to our form of life anywhere we know of with the only exception being Earth???

    "Fine tuned" for matter maybe, but life, not so much. Maybe that is out sticking point.

    Are you saying our universe is "fine tuned" for life in general or just matter existing or some such??

    Cause our universe is so far producing an incredibly, unbelievably small quantity of life if that is what you are forwarding.

    Let me address the rest of your post later as I am out of time at the moment.

  7. #426
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    you will never actually get to infinity
    Two things:
    1. You can count to infinity if you count an infinite number of times.
    2. Wouldn't a deity that exists outside of space & time be infinite?

 

 
Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12 18 19 20 21 22

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
  •