Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A new age of quantum madness

errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 7:50:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you think of this article?

http://creation.com...

I thought the bit about multiverses being special pleading on the Atheists part was particularly insightful.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:03:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I sincerely hope this is trolling.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Nonsense. What if gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion, and the laws of chemical reaction didn't exist? What if earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun? We'd burn up. What is earth was a little further away from the sun? We'd freeze. I think there is a whole article on examples like this somewhere on Creation.com (the fine-tuning of life, or something like that).

Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

I hardly think this negates the point.

1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What does the fact that there is stuff that doesn't look designed have to do with it?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:35:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:03:10 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I sincerely hope this is trolling.

What?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:45:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Nonsense. What if gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion, and the laws of chemical reaction didn't exist?

So long as there was something there would be laws to govern it.

What if earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun? We'd burn up. What is earth was a little further away from the sun? We'd freeze. I think there is a whole article on examples like this somewhere on Creation.com (the fine-tuning of life, or something like that).

The Earth's distance to the sun varies 5 million kilometers during its orbit and the effect on Earth's temperature isn't even enough to overcome the effects of the Earth's tilt.

So, no, a little bit closer or further away wouldn't result in us burning up or freezing.


Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

I hardly think this negates the point.

1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What does the fact that there is stuff that doesn't look designed have to do with it?

Because 1 is determined via comparison between that which doesn't appear to be designed. The conclusion of the teleological argument, however, is that everything, regardless of appearance, is designed. This means that the comparison is faulty because both things are designed, meaning the inference (#2) carries no weight since everything is designed regardless of how it looks as per the conclusion of the teleological argument. It is self-defeating.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 10:36:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:45:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Nonsense. What if gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion, and the laws of chemical reaction didn't exist?

So long as there was something there would be laws to govern it.

Why?

What if earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun? We'd burn up. What is earth was a little further away from the sun? We'd freeze. I think there is a whole article on examples like this somewhere on Creation.com (the fine-tuning of life, or something like that).

The Earth's distance to the sun varies 5 million kilometers during its orbit and the effect on Earth's temperature isn't even enough to overcome the effects of the Earth's tilt.

Neither of us have provided sources. It's your word against mine.

So, no, a little bit closer or further away wouldn't result in us burning up or freezing.


Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

I hardly think this negates the point.

1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What does the fact that there is stuff that doesn't look designed have to do with it?

Because 1 is determined via comparison between that which doesn't appear to be designed. The conclusion of the teleological argument, however, is that everything, regardless of appearance, is designed. This means that the comparison is faulty because both things are designed, meaning the inference (#2) carries no weight since everything is designed regardless of how it looks as per the conclusion of the teleological argument. It is self-defeating.

So you're saying that because by my own worldview everything is designed (which is true), I somehow cannot tell which things appear to be designed?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:39:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So here is a question. I see the statistic mentioned often that 99.5%+ of species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct.

Go back in time and look at it from there point of view. Hey guys, look at how all these things that had to happen for us to come into existence ?, co-incidence ? I don't think so buddy...we are the product of intelligent design.

Be very aware of the trap you set for not only you but the species that you belong to by looking back in retrospect at things that had to have happened for you to exist then asking hey what are the odds ? astronomical, ergo intelligent design.

Who knows some time in the future some life form may look back in their ancient past at this interesting primate that goes by the name of "human" and had all sorts of interesting idea's about how they were the intended product of it all.......but now no longer exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:14:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM, errya wrote:
1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What do you do for a living? This is a serious question and not intended for name calling.

The reason I ask, is that I am an Intelligent Designer, and I am actually pretty good at it.

I can honestly say, that in my opinion, things do not look designed. To the untrained eye, yes, I can agree that things look designed, but there are a lot of things you expect to see simply in something that is designed simply isn't there.

Intelligence of design vs Nature of Bugs for example; where the thought that has gone into a design is evident both in the success and failures; take something like the Apollo program and Apollo 13, for example, there was a lot of intelligent design, this meant that the failure condition required no less than 3 points of failure.

More importantly, for me, in terms of "intelligence", designing a plane isn't as intelligent as writing a computer program that can design any plane.

Going further, designing a computer program that can design any other computer program to design anything is even more intelligent.

Designing a tiny algorithm, with such simple elegance at could end up designing a computer program that could design any program for designing anything would be the holy grail in intelligent design.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:42:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 10:36:17 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:45:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Nonsense. What if gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion, and the laws of chemical reaction didn't exist?

So long as there was something there would be laws to govern it.

Why?

For the same reason if a deck of cards exists it has to be in some order, whatever that order is. It's incoherent to state that a deck of cards exists, but isn't in any order.


What if earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun? We'd burn up. What is earth was a little further away from the sun? We'd freeze. I think there is a whole article on examples like this somewhere on Creation.com (the fine-tuning of life, or something like that).

The Earth's distance to the sun varies 5 million kilometers during its orbit and the effect on Earth's temperature isn't even enough to overcome the effects of the Earth's tilt.

Neither of us have provided sources. It's your word against mine.

Bwaaa? I thought it was common knowledge! You're not aware that the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical and that the Earth tilts, thus causing the seasons? What school failed you so horribly?!


So, no, a little bit closer or further away wouldn't result in us burning up or freezing.


Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

I hardly think this negates the point.

1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What does the fact that there is stuff that doesn't look designed have to do with it?

Because 1 is determined via comparison between that which doesn't appear to be designed. The conclusion of the teleological argument, however, is that everything, regardless of appearance, is designed. This means that the comparison is faulty because both things are designed, meaning the inference (#2) carries no weight since everything is designed regardless of how it looks as per the conclusion of the teleological argument. It is self-defeating.

So you're saying that because by my own worldview everything is designed (which is true), I somehow cannot tell which things appear to be designed?

Not through comparison against stuff that isn't designed.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 8:59:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:39:51 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So here is a question. I see the statistic mentioned often that 99.5%+ of species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct.

Go back in time and look at it from there point of view. Hey guys, look at how all these things that had to happen for us to come into existence ?, co-incidence ? I don't think so buddy...we are the product of intelligent design.

Be very aware of the trap you set for not only you but the species that you belong to by looking back in retrospect at things that had to have happened for you to exist then asking hey what are the odds ? astronomical, ergo intelligent design.

Who knows some time in the future some life form may look back in their ancient past at this interesting primate that goes by the name of "human" and had all sorts of interesting idea's about how they were the intended product of it all.......but now no longer exist.

It's worse than that...

The premise of the fine-tuning argument is such that the conditions necessary for life are so improbable that it is more likely that they were set by some intelligence than by random chance. In this sense we are talking about various constants and conditions on the universe as a whole (properties of elementary particles and forces).

However, we can extend this logic. It isn't merely the precise values of constants which allow for life, but the precise conditions necessary for each individual life form!

Take, for example, me. Not only does my existence depend on all of the requirements for life in general, but also all of the precise behaviors of all of the organisms that came before me. My very existence depended on when and where my parents decided to have sex, the exact nature of that sex and, consequently, their own existence and those decisions made by their parents, so forth and so on.

Each generation is less likely than the previous, since it depends on more and more constraints which, if even slightly different, would have prevented their existence. Ergo, if we apply the logic of the fine-tuning argument, that such constraints imply a designer then its conclusion isn't that life itself is evidence of design, but every organism that has ever life was specifically and intentionally designed to come into being.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:55:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 7:42:07 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:36:17 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:45:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
So long as there was something there would be laws to govern it.

Why?

For the same reason if a deck of cards exists it has to be in some order, whatever that order is. It's incoherent to state that a deck of cards exists, but isn't in any order.

The problem is we do not know of any law or laws which are responsible for the fine tuning of the initial conditions. Now of course this does not mean that such law does not exist, but I think the best scientific knowledge we have today points to no said law. It comes down to are these things truly initial conditions or are they intricately related in some way that we don't know and the best scientific evidence is that these are not not related and that they are truly contingent features. There is not any inherent connection between say the ratio of matter over anti matter, and the expansion speed of the universe or of the entropy of the universe. These initial conditions are not the result of some higher logical law but seem to be genuinely contingent non law like quantities.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:03:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:55:46 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/2/2013 7:42:07 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:36:17 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:45:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
So long as there was something there would be laws to govern it.

Why?

For the same reason if a deck of cards exists it has to be in some order, whatever that order is. It's incoherent to state that a deck of cards exists, but isn't in any order.

The problem is we do not know of any law or laws which are responsible for the fine tuning of the initial conditions. Now of course this does not mean that such law does not exist, but I think the best scientific knowledge we have today points to no said law. It comes down to are these things truly initial conditions or are they intricately related in some way that we don't know and the best scientific evidence is that these are not not related and that they are truly contingent features. There is not any inherent connection between say the ratio of matter over anti matter, and the expansion speed of the universe or of the entropy of the universe. These initial conditions are not the result of some higher logical law but seem to be genuinely contingent non law like quantities.

The key thing is we don't know. However, we haven't discounted the possibility. For example, String "Theory" attempts to establish a relationship between many of these conditions by positing that what appear to be disparate and distinct particles are all actually the same thing: strings.

Regardless, any claim of probabilities for these conditions requires knowing what, if any, constraining relationships there are. Since we don't know that, we can't conclude anything about the probabilities of them arising through chance.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:04:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:50:14 PM, errya wrote:
What do you think of this article?

http://creation.com...

I thought the bit about multiverses being special pleading on the Atheists part was particularly insightful.

I think that the article is terribly misleading, and it derives the majority of its conclusions from misinterpretations that are likely due to a dearth in knowledge.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:11:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

That's a rather broad statement suggesting a great deal more knowledge than you can conceivably have (as a human).

http://www.amazon.com...

According to material published on the matter, there is so much of the Universe that humans haven't observed that it would be fallacious to make any sort of generalized statements about its character.

Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

The point here is that it's more likely that some form of intelligence etched the specific characters of your name in your language in exactly the pattern that would create your name, rather than due to some random manifestation. One reason for this is that letters were created in part because they're distinct from naturally-occurring shapes, lending reason it their relative complexity.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

This would, in fact, be evidence of contradiction if the article weren't specifically regarding life, rather than everything as know it.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:14:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Nonsense. What if gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion, and the laws of chemical reaction didn't exist? What if earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun? We'd burn up. What is earth was a little further away from the sun? We'd freeze. I think there is a whole article on examples like this somewhere on Creation.com (the fine-tuning of life, or something like that).

Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

I hardly think this negates the point.

1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What does the fact that there is stuff that doesn't look designed have to do with it?

This is a strange argument.

Humans define concepts by function, not by form, as form is based entirely on interpretation, which is something that reason and logic has taught often leads to misinformation.

Therefore, how something appears to you, or any single person for that matter, is irrelevant to everyone except that person and those who agree.

Of course, if one were to think about that long enough, one would need to realize that this property of human understanding actually applies to everything. This, of course, is why humans have developed the concept of authority.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:17:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To add my own opinion on the matter, I think that what the scientist who wrote the passage linked in the OP is experiencing is a natural state of matter that arrived to a given degree of complexity.

The more complex the compound, the more complex its interactions with other compounds will be.

This does not necessarily detract from a significant consciousness and decision-making, but it does reduce the relevance of both. Accordingly, although we're unlikely to glean any sort of comprehensible abstract "meaning or purpose" to our existence, sentient beings are still responsible for their actions. Worst case scenario, I know. Life just isn't fair. Guess we'll just have to make the most of it.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:26:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 10:11:51 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

That's a rather broad statement suggesting a great deal more knowledge than you can conceivably have (as a human).

http://www.amazon.com...

According to material published on the matter, there is so much of the Universe that humans haven't observed that it would be fallacious to make any sort of generalized statements about its character.

Including teleological ones. Regardless, the scope is, necessarily, the scope of what we have observed thus far.


Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

The point here is that it's more likely that some form of intelligence etched the specific characters of your name in your language in exactly the pattern that would create your name, rather than due to some random manifestation. One reason for this is that letters were created in part because they're distinct from naturally-occurring shapes, lending reason it their relative complexity.

Which is what I said...


However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

This would, in fact, be evidence of contradiction if the article weren't specifically regarding life, rather than everything as know it.

It does address the entirety of the universe:

"Davies is 100% right when he says that it requires an "external source" to explain our universe"s laws"

The existence of life is merely what fine-tuning arguments use in order to reach the conclusion that the universe was, in fact, fine-tuned.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:50:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:50:14 PM, errya wrote:
What do you think of this article?

http://creation.com...

I thought the bit about multiverses being special pleading on the Atheists part was particularly insightful.

The article confuses the strong and weak anthrpoic principle.

It also doesn't distinguish hypothesis, and scientific speculation from widely accepted theory that has evidence, predictions and falsification.

This type of post is indicative of a subculture who are hostile to science while not really understanding how it works.

Its a neat hypothesis really that has some supporting maths, but its one of about 84621 different speculative hypotheses concerning the true nature of reality. Its worth looking at, by all means as it is at least self consistent but science and scientists all treat it ad such.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:54:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 10:03:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:55:46 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/2/2013 7:42:07 AM, drafterman wrote:
For the same reason if a deck of cards exists it has to be in some order, whatever that order is. It's incoherent to state that a deck of cards exists, but isn't in any order.

The problem is we do not know of any law or laws which are responsible for the fine tuning of the initial conditions. Now of course this does not mean that such law does not exist, but I think the best scientific knowledge we have today points to no said law. It comes down to are these things truly initial conditions or are they intricately related in some way that we don't know and the best scientific evidence is that these are not not related and that they are truly contingent features. There is not any inherent connection between say the ratio of matter over anti matter, and the expansion speed of the universe or of the entropy of the universe. These initial conditions are not the result of some higher logical law but seem to be genuinely contingent non law like quantities.

The key thing is we don't know. However, we haven't discounted the possibility. For example, String "Theory" attempts to establish a relationship between many of these conditions by positing that what appear to be disparate and distinct particles are all actually the same thing: strings.

Yeah like I said just because we don't know that it exists, doesn't mean it does not exist. However, I do think the best scientific knowledge does show that these are genuinely contingent non law like quantities. Do dispute that?

Regardless, any claim of probabilities for these conditions requires knowing what, if any, constraining relationships there are. Since we don't know that, we can't conclude anything about the probabilities of them arising through chance.

Could you please explain this a little more. I'm sorry I'm not really familiar with this argument so theres probably a lot you say that may not make sense to me haha.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 11:22:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 10:54:48 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/2/2013 10:03:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
The key thing is we don't know. However, we haven't discounted the possibility. For example, String "Theory" attempts to establish a relationship between many of these conditions by positing that what appear to be disparate and distinct particles are all actually the same thing: strings.
Yeah like I said just because we don't know that it exists, doesn't mean it does not exist. However, I do think the best scientific knowledge does show that these are genuinely contingent non law like quantities. Do dispute that?
What does "non law like quantities" mean?

Regardless, any claim of probabilities for these conditions requires knowing what, if any, constraining relationships there are. Since we don't know that, we can't conclude anything about the probabilities of them arising through chance.
Could you please explain this a little more. I'm sorry I'm not really familiar with this argument so theres probably a lot you say that may not make sense to me haha.
He means that we do not have other universes to compare to in order to ARRIVE at a probability. Actually, the only TRUE probability we can calculate is that 1 out 1 times the universe gives rise to its current laws.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 11:27:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 10:54:48 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/2/2013 10:03:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:55:46 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/2/2013 7:42:07 AM, drafterman wrote:
For the same reason if a deck of cards exists it has to be in some order, whatever that order is. It's incoherent to state that a deck of cards exists, but isn't in any order.

The problem is we do not know of any law or laws which are responsible for the fine tuning of the initial conditions. Now of course this does not mean that such law does not exist, but I think the best scientific knowledge we have today points to no said law. It comes down to are these things truly initial conditions or are they intricately related in some way that we don't know and the best scientific evidence is that these are not not related and that they are truly contingent features. There is not any inherent connection between say the ratio of matter over anti matter, and the expansion speed of the universe or of the entropy of the universe. These initial conditions are not the result of some higher logical law but seem to be genuinely contingent non law like quantities.

The key thing is we don't know. However, we haven't discounted the possibility. For example, String "Theory" attempts to establish a relationship between many of these conditions by positing that what appear to be disparate and distinct particles are all actually the same thing: strings.

Yeah like I said just because we don't know that it exists, doesn't mean it does not exist. However, I do think the best scientific knowledge does show that these are genuinely contingent non law like quantities. Do dispute that?

I don't dispute it, necessarily, but I don't know of what contingent laws you are talking about. As far as I'm aware, the vast array of seemingly arbitrary constants is an irritating mystery, one that many scientists agree requires explanation through some Theory of Everything.


Regardless, any claim of probabilities for these conditions requires knowing what, if any, constraining relationships there are. Since we don't know that, we can't conclude anything about the probabilities of them arising through chance.

Could you please explain this a little more. I'm sorry I'm not really familiar with this argument so theres probably a lot you say that may not make sense to me haha.

The fine-tuning argument requires knowing probabilities. For example, the probability that the gravitational force is the strength it is or the probability that the electromagnetic force is the strength that it is. In the end, it treats both as independent probabilities, making the overall probability the product of those two.

For example, if we determined the probability of the gravitational force being what it is as 25% chance, and the same for the electromagnetic force, then the overall probability of them both being what they are is 25% * 25% = 12.5% (1 in 8).

However, that's only appropriate if they are truly independent. If they are related somehow (one depends on the other, or they both depend on some, as yet unknown, factor) then they are no longer independent and that isn't how you would determine the overall probability.

There could be any number of unknown laws that place undiscovered constraints on those variables (even going as far as to make them necessary) that would alter any probabilistic calculations.

The TL;DR summary: We lack any basis for concluding what the probability is for any such variable, so therefore lack a basis for saying it is improbable, and therefore lack a basis for saying that a designer is more likely.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:53:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:39:51 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So here is a question.
What exactly is the question?
I see the statistic mentioned often that 99.5%+ of species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct.

Go back in time and look at it from there point of view. Hey guys, look at how all these things that had to happen for us to come into existence ?, co-incidence ? I don't think so buddy...we are the product of intelligent design.

Be very aware of the trap you set for not only you but the species that you belong to by looking back in retrospect at things that had to have happened for you to exist then asking hey what are the odds ? astronomical, ergo intelligent design.

Who knows some time in the future some life form may look back in their ancient past at this interesting primate that goes by the name of "human" and had all sorts of interesting idea's about how they were the intended product of it all.......but now no longer exist.

I fail to see your point. & "Who knows..." doesn't make a very strong argument.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:20:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 11:22:58 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
What does "non law like quantities" mean?

That the initial conditions of the universe were not governed by any laws that we are currently aware of.

He means that we do not have other universes to compare to in order to ARRIVE at a probability. Actually, the only TRUE probability we can calculate is that 1 out 1 times the universe gives rise to its current laws.

I don't believe that is true because we are not comparing the universe as a whole, but rather the specific quantities needed for the fine tuned universe. Things such as gravitational force, the entropy of the universe, the initial expansion speed of the universe, and the ratio of matter to anti matter.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:32:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 11:27:22 AM, drafterman wrote:
I don't dispute it, necessarily, but I don't know of what contingent laws you are talking about. As far as I'm aware, the vast array of seemingly arbitrary constants is an irritating mystery, one that many scientists agree requires explanation through some Theory of Everything.

Now there are only three ways to account for this remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life: physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity is the hypothesis that the constants and quantities had to have the values they do, so that the universe is of physical necessity life-permitting. Now on the face of it this alternative is extraordinarily implausible. It requires us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible. But surely it does seem possible. If the primordial matter and anti-matter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically. The person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there isn"t any; this alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility.

This is what WLC said on the Theory of Everything:
Sometimes physicists do speak of a yet to be discovered Theory of Everything (T.O.E.), but such nomenclature is, like so many of the colorful names given to scientific theories, quite misleading. A T.O.E. actually has the limited goal of providing a unified theory of the four fundamental forces of nature, to reduce gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force to one fundamental force carried by one fundamental particle. Such a theory will, we hope, explain why these four forces take the values they do, but it will not even attempt to explain literally everything.

For example, in the most promising candidate for a T.O.E. to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory. Moreover, M-Theory fails to predict uniquely the values of the constants of nature. It turns out that string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants. Moreover, even though there may be a huge number of possible universes lying within the life-permitting region of the cosmic landscape, nevertheless that life-permitting region will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Indeed, given the number of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that 10500 possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!

All this has been said with respect to the constants alone; there is still nothing to explain the arbitrary quantities put in as boundary conditions. The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipe-dream.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:33:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 7:42:07 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:36:17 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:45:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Nonsense. What if gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion, and the laws of chemical reaction didn't exist?

So long as there was something there would be laws to govern it.

Why?

For the same reason if a deck of cards exists it has to be in some order, whatever that order is. It's incoherent to state that a deck of cards exists, but isn't in any order.
This is begging the question. I don't contend that laws exist. How could these laws possibly be created without God? Drafterman was basically that they 'just are', which, of course, is a hardly satisfying explanation.

What if earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun? We'd burn up. What is earth was a little further away from the sun? We'd freeze. I think there is a whole article on examples like this somewhere on Creation.com (the fine-tuning of life, or something like that).

The Earth's distance to the sun varies 5 million kilometers during its orbit and the effect on Earth's temperature isn't even enough to overcome the effects of the Earth's tilt.

Neither of us have provided sources. It's your word against mine.

Bwaaa? I thought it was common knowledge! You're not aware that the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical and that the Earth tilts, thus causing the seasons? What school failed you so horribly?!

Well, I acknowledge that earth orbits in an ellipse...Maybe I'll do some more research on this. Of course, this doesn't change anything, there are billions more examples.

So, no, a little bit closer or further away wouldn't result in us burning up or freezing.


Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

I hardly think this negates the point.

1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What does the fact that there is stuff that doesn't look designed have to do with it?

Because 1 is determined via comparison between that which doesn't appear to be designed. The conclusion of the teleological argument, however, is that everything, regardless of appearance, is designed. This means that the comparison is faulty because both things are designed, meaning the inference (#2) carries no weight since everything is designed regardless of how it looks as per the conclusion of the teleological argument. It is self-defeating.

So you're saying that because by my own worldview everything is designed (which is true), I somehow cannot tell which things appear to be designed?

Not through comparison against stuff that isn't designed.

The fact I believe everything is designed, does not affect my ability to discern complexity.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:52:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:33:07 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/2/2013 7:42:07 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:36:17 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:45:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:35:27 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:01:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
"The fact that the universe is "just right" for life is well known to physical scientists."

No it isn't. The universe, on the whole, is actually rather antagonistic toward life. If the universe were, in any way, inclined toward life, it should be a bit more abundant than we observe.

Nonsense. What if gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion, and the laws of chemical reaction didn't exist?

So long as there was something there would be laws to govern it.

Why?

For the same reason if a deck of cards exists it has to be in some order, whatever that order is. It's incoherent to state that a deck of cards exists, but isn't in any order.
This is begging the question. I don't contend that laws exist. How could these laws possibly be created without God? Drafterman was basically that they 'just are', which, of course, is a hardly satisfying explanation.

Neither is "God did it!"


What if earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun? We'd burn up. What is earth was a little further away from the sun? We'd freeze. I think there is a whole article on examples like this somewhere on Creation.com (the fine-tuning of life, or something like that).

The Earth's distance to the sun varies 5 million kilometers during its orbit and the effect on Earth's temperature isn't even enough to overcome the effects of the Earth's tilt.

Neither of us have provided sources. It's your word against mine.

Bwaaa? I thought it was common knowledge! You're not aware that the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical and that the Earth tilts, thus causing the seasons? What school failed you so horribly?!

Well, I acknowledge that earth orbits in an ellipse...Maybe I'll do some more research on this. Of course, this doesn't change anything, there are billions more examples.

The definition of ellipse means that the distance from any point on the curve of the ellipse changes with respect to either of the foci, otherwise it'd be a circle.


So, no, a little bit closer or further away wouldn't result in us burning up or freezing.


Regardless, teleological arguments are self-refuting. Consider:

"Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelt(sic) your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligence had written it."

Unspoken in this statement is that, if the pattern of markings was seemingly random, we would conclude that it wasn't written by an intelligence, especially if it was consistent with patterns observed to be caused by waves.

However, the conclusion of teleological arguments is that everything, everything in the universe, is designed, including those things which we concluded are random or undesigned.

The teleological argument uses a method of contrast between the designed and undesigned in an attempt to conclude that everything is designed, which negates the validity of any attempt to contrast between the designed and undesigned since there really is nothing that is undesigned against which we can contrast anything!

I hardly think this negates the point.

1. Lots of stuff looks designed.

2. This strongly implies a designer.

What does the fact that there is stuff that doesn't look designed have to do with it?

Because 1 is determined via comparison between that which doesn't appear to be designed. The conclusion of the teleological argument, however, is that everything, regardless of appearance, is designed. This means that the comparison is faulty because both things are designed, meaning the inference (#2) carries no weight since everything is designed regardless of how it looks as per the conclusion of the teleological argument. It is self-defeating.

So you're saying that because by my own worldview everything is designed (which is true), I somehow cannot tell which things appear to be designed?

Not through comparison against stuff that isn't designed.

The fact I believe everything is designed, does not affect my ability to discern complexity.

I'm not refuting your ability to discern complexity, I am refuting your ability to infer design based on complexity.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:32:50 PM, stubs wrote:
At 1/2/2013 11:27:22 AM, drafterman wrote:
I don't dispute it, necessarily, but I don't know of what contingent laws you are talking about. As far as I'm aware, the vast array of seemingly arbitrary constants is an irritating mystery, one that many scientists agree requires explanation through some Theory of Everything.

Now there are only three ways to account for this remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life: physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity is the hypothesis that the constants and quantities had to have the values they do, so that the universe is of physical necessity life-permitting. Now on the face of it this alternative is extraordinarily implausible. It requires us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible. But surely it does seem possible. If the primordial matter and anti-matter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically. The person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there isn"t any; this alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility.

This is what WLC said on the Theory of Everything:
Sometimes physicists do speak of a yet to be discovered Theory of Everything (T.O.E.), but such nomenclature is, like so many of the colorful names given to scientific theories, quite misleading. A T.O.E. actually has the limited goal of providing a unified theory of the four fundamental forces of nature, to reduce gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force to one fundamental force carried by one fundamental particle. Such a theory will, we hope, explain why these four forces take the values they do, but it will not even attempt to explain literally everything.

For example, in the most promising candidate for a T.O.E. to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory. Moreover, M-Theory fails to predict uniquely the values of the constants of nature. It turns out that string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants. Moreover, even though there may be a huge number of possible universes lying within the life-permitting region of the cosmic landscape, nevertheless that life-permitting region will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Indeed, given the number of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that 10500 possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!

All this has been said with respect to the constants alone; there is still nothing to explain the arbitrary quantities put in as boundary conditions. The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipe-dream.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

That number should read 10^500
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:32:50 PM, stubs wrote:
At 1/2/2013 11:27:22 AM, drafterman wrote:
I don't dispute it, necessarily, but I don't know of what contingent laws you are talking about. As far as I'm aware, the vast array of seemingly arbitrary constants is an irritating mystery, one that many scientists agree requires explanation through some Theory of Everything.

Now there are only three ways to account for this remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life: physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity is the hypothesis that the constants and quantities had to have the values they do, so that the universe is of physical necessity life-permitting. Now on the face of it this alternative is extraordinarily implausible. It requires us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible. But surely it does seem possible. If the primordial matter and anti-matter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically. The person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there isn"t any; this alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility.

This is what WLC said on the Theory of Everything:
Sometimes physicists do speak of a yet to be discovered Theory of Everything (T.O.E.), but such nomenclature is, like so many of the colorful names given to scientific theories, quite misleading. A T.O.E. actually has the limited goal of providing a unified theory of the four fundamental forces of nature, to reduce gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force to one fundamental force carried by one fundamental particle. Such a theory will, we hope, explain why these four forces take the values they do, but it will not even attempt to explain literally everything.

For example, in the most promising candidate for a T.O.E. to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory. Moreover, M-Theory fails to predict uniquely the values of the constants of nature. It turns out that string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants. Moreover, even though there may be a huge number of possible universes lying within the life-permitting region of the cosmic landscape, nevertheless that life-permitting region will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Indeed, given the number of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that 10500 possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!

All this has been said with respect to the constants alone; there is still nothing to explain the arbitrary quantities put in as boundary conditions. The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipe-dream.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I've read plenty such articles. The point is, the conversation stops at this point:

"[Physical necessity] is simply put forward as a bare possibility."

The fact that we can't rule out physical necessity means we don't know enough about the universe to draw any conclusions about the other possibilities (design, chance).

Furthermore, how do you determine the chance design? The goal here is not merely to note that necessity or chance have low probabilities, but that they have lower probabilities than design.

Can you show or reference the math in determining the probability of design?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 8:01:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 2:20:05 PM, drafterman wrote:
I've read plenty such articles. The point is, the conversation stops at this point:

"[Physical necessity] is simply put forward as a bare possibility."

The fact that we can't rule out physical necessity means we don't know enough about the universe to draw any conclusions about the other possibilities (design, chance).

Yeah I agree its possibility, a very very low probability, but a possibility none the less. But in my debates I usually do is the existence of God more probable than not, and at least on this point it seems highly more probable that there is some sort of intelligent designer than that there is not.

Furthermore, how do you determine the chance design? The goal here is not merely to note that necessity or chance have low probabilities, but that they have lower probabilities than design.

Can you show or reference the math in determining the probability of design?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If I'm wrong correct me, but I think you want me to show the probability of a designer in terms of how it relates to the probability of necessity or chance. Now we know that these initial conditions are either due to the physical necessity, chance, or design. Now my thinking is that we know of no such laws, and the "chance" option doesn't seem like much of a viable option at all. So it seems to me most likely that there is some sort of a designer. Now not that this one argument convinces me, but that several in combination do.