?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

02/08/2011 11:40:36 AM · #1126

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
See previous stuff about potential for life amongst billions of stars, etc.

You need to read that book because you are looking foolish.

I'm looking foolish because there are a lot of stars in the universe? I don't understand...

02/08/2011 11:50:26 AM · #1127

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We find ourselves in a universe that allows stars to form. That fact right there is actually amazing as far as we can tell...

Of course, if the universe was such as to not allow stars to form we wouldn't be able to "find ourselves" there. You are reasoning backward. The universe is not "perfectly formed" for us, we (our galaxy, our sun, our planet, us) grew into a form the universe would allow.

02/08/2011 11:53:41 AM · #1128

One can hardly believe that needs pointing out, frankly.

02/08/2011 12:06:13 PM · #1129

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We find ourselves in a universe that allows stars to form. That fact right there is actually amazing as far as we can tell...

Of course, if the universe was such as to not allow stars to form we wouldn't be able to "find ourselves" there. You are reasoning backward. The universe is not "perfectly formed" for us, we (our galaxy, our sun, our planet, us) grew into a form the universe would allow.

Sigh. Work with me guys.

Think about the Powerball Lottery. Millions of people buy tickets and one person wins. We go find the winner and ask, "can you believe you won?" The winner says "no, I can't believe it was me!" and that WAS lucky, but we know there were millions and millions of ticket holders and all we had to do was search out the winner. From his point of view he seems lucky, but we, on the outside, know that someone was bound to win because there were so many players.

Now think about the Powerball Lottery again. This time there is only one ticket bought. Only one player. They win. This time both they AND we are amazed that those numbers came up. In fact it seems quite suspicious and we assume the game was rigged. Someone purposely picked those numbers so our one ticket would win.

In the real world all we know is we are a winning Universe. We can support life. There are two schools of thought to explain this. Both are logical. First, we are one of the winning tickets among zillions and zillions of attempts. That's the multiverse approach. Second, we are the only ticket. The game was rigged. That's the religious approach.

The important point is that the evidence "we find ourselves in a universe that can support life" cannot differentiate between the above two scenarios. It would be true in both. So you cannot answer the fine-tuned problem by just dismissing it with "of course we're in a universe that supports life"! Does this make sense?

Message edited by author 2011-02-08 12:39:25.

02/08/2011 12:46:33 PM · #1130

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In the real world all we know is we are a winning Universe. We can support life. There are two schools of thought to explain this. Both are logical. First, we are one of the winning tickets among zillions and zillions of attempts. That's the multiverse approach. Second, we are the only ticket. The game was rigged. That's the religioius approach.

And our point is that this is a false dichotomy. It's not an either or (multiverse/religion) question. Perhaps the way things are is the only way things can be. And as I've already pointed out, even if you accept the dichotomy (lottery winner/rigged game), you don't get "religion" except in the most-broad, vaguest and unspecific form, or even necessitate a non-natural explanation.

What I find interesting is the "evolution" of the fine-tuning argument. It's a classic case of goal-post shifting. The argument (historically, not necessarily in this discussion) went from, "you can't explain why the Earth is 'fine-tuned' to support life" (and then, after it is pointed out that it really isn't that remarkable, given basic probabilities and the number of possible rolls of the dice provided by the vastness of the universe) to, "you can't explain why the universe is 'fine-tuned' to support life."

Again, beyond pointing out the obvious fact that the universe really is not that supportive of life - we appear to be exception, rather than a rule - it's still a matter of backward reasoning.

The question that matters in this context is: is there any evidence that non-natural processes are at work in the universe in which we find ourselves? No, and less and less room to pretend that there might be all the time.

Message edited by author 2011-02-08 12:48:19.

02/08/2011 12:47:05 PM · #1131

None of this answers the very simple fact that the universe is not "fine-tuned" to support life as we know it. Life as we know it is fine-tuned to exist in the universe. Why is this a difficult proposition? Forget multiverses -- it isn't relevant (though I suppose your earlier insult makes sense now, you having misunderstood me).

02/08/2011 12:49:24 PM · #1132

Yum. My book just arrived. I don't do Kindle. I will never read a book in electronic form. I have a relationship with every book I read -- touch, sight, smell. I love my iPad for some things, but you can't cozy up to a hunk of metal and glass.

02/08/2011 01:10:47 PM · #1133

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

What I find interesting is the "evolution" of the fine-tuning argument. It's a classic case of goal-post shifting. The argument (historically, not necessarily in this discussion) went from, "you can't explain why the Earth is 'fine-tuned' to support life" (and then, after it is pointed out that it really isn't that remarkable, given basic probabilities and the number of possible rolls of the dice provided by the vastness of the universe) to, "you can't explain why the universe is 'fine-tuned' to support life."

Whoa. Please quote me on this because it doesn't sound like my argument. When have I ever argued that Earth is "fine-tuned" to support life? I doubt I ever argued that in the way you are proposing.

02/08/2011 01:11:38 PM · #1134

Originally posted by Louis:

Enjoy the book. You still aren't quite getting the crux of the argument, but I don't know what else to say.

The answer, if you want another crack at it, lies in my statement from above: For example, being "carbon chauvenists" sounds cool, but most parameters deal with end results like the entire universe degrading into black holes or never developing matter period. One can safely speculate that life of any type, no matter how exotic, is going to be relatively complex and must have a universe that supports complexity. A universe of homogenous quarks would not qualify.

Message edited by author 2011-02-08 13:15:57.

02/08/2011 02:16:42 PM · #1135

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What I find interesting is the "evolution" of the fine-tuning argument. It's a classic case of goal-post shifting. The argument (historically, not necessarily in this discussion) went from, "you can't explain why the Earth is 'fine-tuned' to support life" (and then, after it is pointed out that it really isn't that remarkable, given basic probabilities and the number of possible rolls of the dice provided by the vastness of the universe) to, "you can't explain why the universe is 'fine-tuned' to support life."

Whoa. Please quote me on this because it doesn't sound like my argument. When have I ever argued that Earth is "fine-tuned" to support life? I doubt I ever argued that in the way you are proposing.

Not saying you did, thus the parenthetical. The "fine-tuning" canard is a very, very old bird.

02/08/2011 02:32:13 PM · #1136

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Not saying you did, thus the parenthetical. The "fine-tuning" canard is a very, very old bird.

Well, come on. You can't hold me responsible for other arguments from other ages. We're all moving goalposts in that regard. :P

02/08/2011 04:51:15 PM · #1137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No they are not both logical. You can't go from where you're at now in your argument (i.e. the possibility of a watchmaker) to "Jesus was the Son of God" as SP mentioned earlier. You know this already.

02/08/2011 05:08:31 PM · #1138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Not saying you did, thus the parenthetical. The "fine-tuning" canard is a very, very old bird.

Well, come on. You can't hold me responsible for other arguments from other ages. We're all moving goalposts in that regard. :P

Speaking of football, how many more downs does religion get before science scores the safety?

02/08/2011 05:11:31 PM · #1139

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the real world all we know is we are a winning Universe. We can support life. There are two schools of thought to explain this. Both are logical. First, we are one of the winning tickets among zillions and zillions of attempts. That's the multiverse approach. Second, we are the only ticket. The game was rigged. That's the religioius approach.

No they are not both logical. You can't go from where you're at now in your argument (i.e. the possibility of a watchmaker) to "Jesus was the Son of God" as SP mentioned earlier. You know this already.

Richard. Was I even making that argument? Come on. Geez.

02/08/2011 05:57:59 PM · #1140

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the real world all we know is we are a winning Universe. We can support life. There are two schools of thought to explain this. Both are logical. First, we are one of the winning tickets among zillions and zillions of attempts. That's the multiverse approach. Second, we are the only ticket. The game was rigged. That's the religioius approach.

No they are not both logical. You can't go from where you're at now in your argument (i.e. the possibility of a watchmaker) to "Jesus was the Son of God" as SP mentioned earlier. You know this already.

Richard. Was I even making that argument? Come on. Geez.

The point is you need to. Why is religion (i.e. Christianity, Hinduism, etc) a valid approach (as you put it)? So far all you have attempted to do is show where science is weak, but that says nothing about the validity of religion as a valid alternative.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

02/08/2011 06:01:00 PM · #1141

Originally posted by yanko:

You know the saying don't put the cart before the horse. With this group really we just need to talk about the rational idea that God exists. The rest comes way, way, way down the road. Don't worry. If it ever came to that point, I would not invoke the lack of evidence for a multiverse in an argument about the divine nature of Jesus Christ.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

02/08/2011 06:28:21 PM · #1142

Originally posted by Louis:

I can. Although mine is a hunk of plastic. Wait, what are we talking about? (Besides, I read a LOT when I travel, and I travel frequently, and carrying a half-dozen books with me was getting annoying. Point to Kobo!)

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

02/08/2011 06:30:31 PM · #1143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
The point is you need to. Why is religion (i.e. Christianity, Hinduism, etc) a valid approach (as you put it)? So far all you have attempted to do is show where science is weak, but that says nothing about the validity of religion as a valid alternative.

You know the saying don't put the cart before the horse. With this group really we just need to talk about the rational idea that God exists. The rest comes way, way, way down the road. Don't worry. If it ever came to that point, I would not invoke the lack of evidence for a multiverse in an argument about the divine nature of Jesus Christ.

Well, I don't consider the idea of god(s) existing as rational in the slightest, so I already know the only thing we'll ever agree on is microbrews. Maybe. Probably hate beer too.

02/08/2011 07:00:33 PM · #1144

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Probably hate beer too.

Once again, my friend, you are wrong. :P I like it dark and sweet. Where are you again? Do you have access to NW microbrews? Rogue has some awesome stouts. So does Stone. They make a limited run Imperial Russian Stout that sells out almost instantly.

But if you are one of those IPA dandies, then it's back to fighting between us. I can't abide IPA. It's bitter like you atheists... :D

02/08/2011 07:04:14 PM · #1145

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ok, lets assume that isn't a problem here. What would be your next steps in bridging the gap?

02/08/2011 07:13:13 PM · #1146

In other words, you can start with the premise that there's a God. Can you work your way down to where you have logically concluded it's the one from the Bible and not some other kind?

02/08/2011 07:29:33 PM · #1147

Originally posted by yanko:

In other words, you can start with the premise that there's a God. Can you work your way down to where you have logically concluded it's the one from the Bible and not some other kind?

To the complete exclusion of all other options? No. Not to your satisfaction. But this is a completely different topic and we were having fun talking about the multiverse.