DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Aliens, evolution, and creationism
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 249, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/21/2013 02:58:27 PM · #76
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(BTW, I have no problem with the multiverse, period. If God exists, though, it's probably a redundant step ...).

If the multiverse exists wouldn't each "'verse" need it's own (slightly different) God?

Possibly just one, very kludgy God who kept whacking away at the concept, over and over, until he got it right?

I am trying to reconcile the concept of such monumental ineptitude ("kludginess") with the previously-ascribed characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence ...

I'd prefer to think that in some other universe their God was actually the kind and compassionate father so often described but rarely evidenced in our own, who'd keep his children from blowing each other up over which is his favorite ....
06/21/2013 03:18:03 PM · #77
Let me back way up and give you my overall impression of things. In 1900 we were seemingly on the cusp of huge advances in science. The universe was eternal, static, ordinary and Newtonian and all we had to do was mop up our understanding of how it all worked. Darwin had presented a ground-breaking theory that could naturally explain our existence and it was this period of time where scientists declared (hubristically) "there are no important discoveries left to be made" (a real quote).

The next century did not go as forseen.

The first blow came from George Lamaitre who was a scientist but also, ironically, a priest. He advanced the idea that the universe was not static, but was changing. Others added on that it was changing by expanding and that led us to the natural conclusion that if it were expanding that at some point it was much smaller and that at some point it had a "beginning". Fred Hoyle derisively nicknamed this idea the "Big Bang". Further work, however, only confirmed this idea. The universe was now not only not static, it was not eternal.

The second blow came from our understanding of Quantum mechanics. The universe was not Newtonian, but much stranger. We understood that at very small levels the universe is apparently random. It wasn't that we just hadn't discovered the laws that applied to its behavior, but that its behavior was essentially undescribable. As Niels Bohr once quipped, "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

The third blow came from our understanding of the apprent fine-tuned properties of the universe. Einstein called his attempt to avoid these conclusions his "biggest blunder". We are concluding that a universe that can support life is far from ordinary but is quite extraordinary.

So, as the century has progressed our understanding has progressed as well. But our understanding has mainly progressed by realizing our lack of understanding. If we want a "natural" explanation for everything we are moving in the WRONG direction. As I see history unfold, I, personally, make conclusions based upon this idea. These conclusions, to me, reveal a master plan; a creator. Such a conclusion is not necessary, but I believe it can safely be declared that such a conclusion is rational. That is all I ask.
06/21/2013 03:27:31 PM · #78
Discussion on "God of the Gaps" and rainbows

here's a somewhat on topic video. It's quite entertaining, and I was in the audience for it.
06/21/2013 03:31:39 PM · #79
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

These conclusions, to me, reveal a master plan; a creator. Such a conclusion is not necessary, but I believe it can safely be declared that such a conclusion is rational. That is all I ask.

I think I'd consider it "reasonable" (in the colloquial, not literal sense) but not "rational" ... I think true rationality requires affirmative evidence for (God), not an absence of evidence against (God).

Who/what meta-god created God? If something so complex as God can exist without the prior existence of an even more complex creator, then why does our simpler universe require one?
06/21/2013 03:41:02 PM · #80
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Discussion on "God of the Gaps" and rainbows

here's a somewhat on topic video. It's quite entertaining, and I was in the audience for it.


Blah Blah blah. God of the Gaps is a very poor argument for or against. Where else would you expect to find a non-scientific process? Within scientific understanding? Of course not. It also only pertains to "scientism" where the only acceptable evidence for any truth is scientific in nature. We know the real world does not operate with this premise and we know scientism is self-defeating. God of the Gaps, as a counterargument against God, is bush league at best.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 15:56:36.
06/21/2013 03:45:26 PM · #81
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

These conclusions, to me, reveal a master plan; a creator. Such a conclusion is not necessary, but I believe it can safely be declared that such a conclusion is rational. That is all I ask.

I think I'd consider it "reasonable" (in the colloquial, not literal sense) but not "rational" ... I think true rationality requires affirmative evidence for (God), not an absence of evidence against (God).

Who/what meta-god created God? If something so complex as God can exist without the prior existence of an even more complex creator, then why does our simpler universe require one?


OK. I'm fine with that. "reasonable" and "rational" are practically synonymous (actually, in fact, they are). Maybe the difference is what you meant by the "colloquial" use). Sherlock Holmes would disagree with your "not an absense of evidence" requirement with his famous quote "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" ;) (Doyle is at least as cool as Douglas Adams...)
06/21/2013 04:10:38 PM · #82
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(Doyle is at least as cool as Douglas Adams...)

Doyle is especially cool because ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Isaac's sisters are distant relatives ...

"We don't make progress by confirming our theories, we make progress by overturning our theories."

Sean Carroll
Author, "The Particle at the End of the Universe" (Dutton, Nov 2012)

on [url=//sciencefriday.com/topics/physics-chemistry/segment/06/21/2013/physicists-find-new-particle-look-for-answers.html]today's episode of Science Friday[url], discussing the "new" (i.e. recently-discovered) four-quark state of matter ...

Audio/podcast pending -- it was an interesting discussion, somewhat more wide-ranging than just particle physics ...
06/21/2013 04:36:25 PM · #83
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let me back way up and give you my overall impression of things. In 1900 we were seemingly on the cusp of huge advances in science. The universe was eternal, static, ordinary and Newtonian and all we had to do was mop up our understanding of how it all worked. Darwin had presented a ground-breaking theory that could naturally explain our existence and it was this period of time where scientists declared (hubristically) "there are no important discoveries left to be made" (a real quote).

The next century did not go as forseen.

The first blow came from George Lamaitre who was a scientist but also, ironically, a priest. He advanced the idea that the universe was not static, but was changing. Others added on that it was changing by expanding and that led us to the natural conclusion that if it were expanding that at some point it was much smaller and that at some point it had a "beginning". Fred Hoyle derisively nicknamed this idea the "Big Bang". Further work, however, only confirmed this idea. The universe was now not only not static, it was not eternal.

The second blow came from our understanding of Quantum mechanics. The universe was not Newtonian, but much stranger. We understood that at very small levels the universe is apparently random. It wasn't that we just hadn't discovered the laws that applied to its behavior, but that its behavior was essentially undescribable. As Niels Bohr once quipped, "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

The third blow came from our understanding of the apprent fine-tuned properties of the universe. Einstein called his attempt to avoid these conclusions his "biggest blunder". We are concluding that a universe that can support life is far from ordinary but is quite extraordinary.

So, as the century has progressed our understanding has progressed as well. But our understanding has mainly progressed by realizing our lack of understanding. If we want a "natural" explanation for everything we are moving in the WRONG direction. As I see history unfold, I, personally, make conclusions based upon this idea. These conclusions, to me, reveal a master plan; a creator. Such a conclusion is not necessary, but I believe it can safely be declared that such a conclusion is rational. That is all I ask.


Why do you insist on calling steps of progress "blows" as though they somehow weaken the science?

The fallacy you're engaging in here is the confusion between conclusions and science - sure, those were all blows to some people's conclusions. Hell, a now long dead friend, H. Jerry Longley, was a very vocal opponent of the entire idea of quarks and muons, and all other subatomic bits.

Conclusions are great, but they do little to advance the science. Findings, like this one, that break all the previous theories and conclusions are the best sort of science, because that's real progress.

A professor who I adored, Donna Hobbs (not particularly well known, but a wise ol gal), was fond of pointing out that the value of science is in disproving things, and that it's never proven a damn thing. She was also fond of telling us that she believed in leprechauns, and explaining why we couldn't refute her position with science.

I say that your conclusion is not rational, but rather just programmed into you - if you were suddenly deprived of all your religious knowledge and placed in an environment that was 'clean' with no religious influence, do you really think you would come to any conclusions that were at all even similar to the ideas which you hold now? I seriously do not think you would. However, take away all my science knowledge, and make me start again, using only the tools of science - I'll still come to the exact same conclusions that were arrived at in the first place. That consistency alone should be sufficient to provide a very strong bias against religion, since it is not in any way consistent.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 16:54:54.
06/21/2013 04:46:12 PM · #84
Originally posted by Cory:


Why do you insist on calling steps of progress "blows" as though they somehow weaken the science?


They weren't blows to "science" but blows to the idea that we were on the verge of understanding everything. That feeling really did exist in the beginning of the 20th century.

Put another way, a dynamic, quantum, rare universe with a finite beginning is more supportive of the concept of God than a static, Newtonian, ordinary and eternal universe. BJ brought up the idea that often gets termed "god of the gaps" which says that the more we know they less need there is for God to exist. In fact, the advancing of our understanding of the universe over the last 100 years has increased the "gaps" for God (to use the vernacular of that terrible analogy).

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 16:46:24.
06/21/2013 04:49:58 PM · #85
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:


Why do you insist on calling steps of progress "blows" as though they somehow weaken the science?


They weren't blows to "science" but blows to the idea that we were on the verge of understanding everything. That feeling really did exist in the beginning of the 20th century.

Put another way, a dynamic, quantum, rare universe with a finite beginning is more supportive of the concept of God than a static, Newtonian, ordinary and eternal universe. BJ brought up the idea that often gets termed "god of the gaps" which says that the more we know they less need there is for God to exist. In fact, the advancing of our understanding of the universe over the last 100 years has increased the "gaps" for God (to use the vernacular of that terrible analogy).


No. Your premise here is fubar.

Why must a dynamic, quantum, rare universe with a finite beginning be somehow more supportive of the concept of God? Never mind that we don't actually know anything beyond the first one you mentioned to be true, yes - it is dynamic - dynamic, quantum, rare, finite? I'm less sure of all of those, and exponentially less sure of gods existence.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 16:50:42.
06/21/2013 04:53:14 PM · #86
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

These conclusions, to me, reveal a master plan; a creator. Such a conclusion is not necessary, but I believe it can safely be declared that such a conclusion is rational. That is all I ask.

I think I'd consider it "reasonable" (in the colloquial, not literal sense) but not "rational" ... I think true rationality requires affirmative evidence for (God), not an absence of evidence against (God).

Who/what meta-god created God? If something so complex as God can exist without the prior existence of an even more complex creator, then why does our simpler universe require one?


OK. I'm fine with that. "reasonable" and "rational" are practically synonymous (actually, in fact, they are). Maybe the difference is what you meant by the "colloquial" use). Sherlock Holmes would disagree with your "not an absense of evidence" requirement with his famous quote "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" ;) (Doyle is at least as cool as Douglas Adams...)


Oh, sure I agree with that. Unfortunately, we're nowhere near having eliminated the impossible, and you've jumped ahead to concluding what the truth must be.
06/21/2013 05:00:00 PM · #87
Originally posted by Cory:

Oh, sure I agree with that. Unfortunately, we're nowhere near having eliminated the impossible, and you've jumped ahead to concluding what the truth must be.


That's fine. To each their own. Some of us finish tests faster than others. ;)
06/21/2013 05:10:08 PM · #88
Originally posted by Cory:

Why must a dynamic, quantum, rare universe with a finite beginning be somehow more supportive of the concept of God? Never mind that we don't actually know anything beyond the first one you mentioned to be true, yes - it is dynamic - dynamic, quantum, rare, finite? I'm less sure of all of those, and exponentially less sure of gods existence.


This is where I pause to ask if you are reading and comprehending.

You doubt the universe is quantum?
You doubt the universe had a t=0 (ie. a beginning of time)?
You think the fine-tuned nature is illusory?

If you doubt those things you are going against current science. My point stands, however. Such a universe IS more open (supportive) to a God than the other. You are just arguing that maybe we are still in a Newtonian (really?), eternal, ordinary universe. In 1900 that would be de rigueur. In 2013...not so much.
06/21/2013 05:21:46 PM · #89
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Why must a dynamic, quantum, rare universe with a finite beginning be somehow more supportive of the concept of God? Never mind that we don't actually know anything beyond the first one you mentioned to be true, yes - it is dynamic - dynamic, quantum, rare, finite? I'm less sure of all of those, and exponentially less sure of gods existence.


This is where I pause to ask if you are reading and comprehending.

You doubt the universe is quantum?
You doubt the universe had a t=0 (ie. a beginning of time)?
You think the fine-tuned nature is illusory?

If you doubt those things you are going against current science. My point stands, however. Such a universe IS more open (supportive) to a God than the other. You are just arguing that maybe we are still in a Newtonian (really?), eternal, ordinary universe. In 1900 that would be de rigueur. In 2013...not so much.


Sure, and I think any healthy scientist does to some level right now. Obviously we've got some problems with the theories that are in place right now. We haven't had anything this exciting happen in a long time.

There's no reason to not suspect quantum theory, it doesn't fit the universe.
There's no reason to suspect that the universe wasn't preceeded by something - so while the universe may have had a beginning, that is pretty unlikely to have been THE beginning, and I'm not sure even that there is a THE beginning.
You didn't say fine-tuned, you said rare and finite.
rare? Well hell, we can only see this one, so I suppose you can argue it's unique - perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Why does this have any relevancy to god's existence?
As for it being finite? Actually I think it is, but I can't say with any certainty that it is, or what the bounds of that finite space is or what may or may not lie beyond them.

Of course, I don't know why any of that really matters anyhow - I wish we'd get on with something more practical, and stop pouring energy into the whole God thing. It's a resource sink, and we're wasting our potential.

You know, that makes me think - is our attraction as a species similar to our attraction to drugs? There's no denying our nature in terms of drug seeking behaviors, and frankly the parallels are quite interesting: both make you feel good, but it's just your imagination, both cost money and take time away from what would otherwise be used in some sort of productive pursuit, and both are self reinforcing in the way that druggies tend to hang out with other druggies, and therefore it starts to seem normal, and nothing is different with any given group of religious folks.

Fascinating idea. Is religion analogous to drug addiction in terms of our species's habit and attraction to both?

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 17:47:52.
06/21/2013 05:39:51 PM · #90
Originally posted by Cory:

There's no reason to no suspect quantum theory, it doesn't fit the universe.
There's no reason to suspect that the universe wasn't preceeded by something - so while the universe may have had a beginning, that is pretty unlikely to have been THE beginning, and I'm not sure even that there is a THE beginning.
That's fine, but this concept is now philosphical and not scientific (ie. is not open to experimental data).

You didn't say fine-tuned, you said rare and finite.
rare? Well hell, we can only see this one, so I suppose you can argue it's unique - perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Why does this have any relevancy to god's existence?
As for it being finite? Actually I think it is, but I can't say with any certainty that it is, or what the bounds of that finite space is or what may or may not lie beyond them.
My english teacher always told me not to use the same word twice. that's all I meant with "rare". Read: "fine-tuned". Finite means finite in the past. There was a point where time=0.

Fascinating idea. Is religion analogous to drug addiction in terms of our species's habit and attraction to both?


Seeking the truth IS habit forming. We can all agree on that.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 17:40:30.
06/21/2013 05:42:07 PM · #91
Originally posted by Cory:

You know, that makes me think - is our attraction as a species similar to our attraction to drugs? There's no denying our nature in terms of drug seeking behaviors, and frankly the parallels are quite interesting: both make you feel good, but it's just your imagination, both cost money and take time away from what would otherwise be used in some sort of productive pursuit, and both are self reinforcing in the way that druggies tend to hang out with other druggies, and therefore it starts to seem normal, and nothing is different with any given group of religious folks.

Fascinating idea. Is religion analogous to drug addiction in terms of our species's habit and attraction to both?

I suspect you are not the first to draw this parallel ...

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

-Karl Marx (1818-1883), Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
06/21/2013 05:44:11 PM · #92
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Discussion on "God of the Gaps" and rainbows

here's a somewhat on topic video. It's quite entertaining, and I was in the audience for it.


Blah Blah blah. God of the Gaps is a very poor argument for or against. Where else would you expect to find a non-scientific process? Within scientific understanding? Of course not. It also only pertains to "scientism" where the only acceptable evidence for any truth is scientific in nature. We know the real world does not operate with this premise and we know scientism is self-defeating. God of the Gaps, as a counterargument against God, is bush league at best.


You are losing "rationality" with each condescending post. Thus is not about refuting the existence of God, but establishing that the attempt to scientifically prove that existence, or the existence of your own personal God, is silly.
06/21/2013 06:18:16 PM · #93
Originally posted by blindjustice:

You are losing "rationality" with each condescending post. Thus is not about refuting the existence of God, but establishing that the attempt to scientifically prove that existence, or the existence of your own personal God, is silly.

But he's not trying to DO that! He's trying to get the radically rational people to acknowledge that it's not absurd to believe in a God. He's said REPEATEDLY that he doesn't begrudge any of us our beliefs. It's about respect. Even Cory's starting to show a little, now :-) And as far as the God-of-the-Gaps argument, THAT particular philosophical chestnut's long since been roasted to a crisp...
06/21/2013 06:21:42 PM · #94
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Discussion on "God of the Gaps" and rainbows

here's a somewhat on topic video. It's quite entertaining, and I was in the audience for it.


Blah Blah blah. God of the Gaps is a very poor argument for or against. Where else would you expect to find a non-scientific process? Within scientific understanding? Of course not. It also only pertains to "scientism" where the only acceptable evidence for any truth is scientific in nature. We know the real world does not operate with this premise and we know scientism is self-defeating. God of the Gaps, as a counterargument against God, is bush league at best.


You are losing "rationality" with each condescending post. Thus is not about refuting the existence of God, but establishing that the attempt to scientifically prove that existence, or the existence of your own personal God, is silly.


I don't mean to be condescending, but, dammit, READ what I'm writing. Don't assume you know what I'm writing and then respond to your assumptions.

EDIT: Robert beat me to it.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 18:42:49.
06/21/2013 09:58:39 PM · #95
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

These conclusions, to me, reveal a master plan; a creator. Such a conclusion is not necessary, but I believe it can safely be declared that such a conclusion is rational. That is all I ask.

I think I'd consider it "reasonable" (in the colloquial, not literal sense) but not "rational" ... I think true rationality requires affirmative evidence for (God), not an absence of evidence against (God).

Who/what meta-god created God? If something so complex as God can exist without the prior existence of an even more complex creator, then why does our simpler universe require one?


OK. I'm fine with that. "reasonable" and "rational" are practically synonymous (actually, in fact, they are). Maybe the difference is what you meant by the "colloquial" use). Sherlock Holmes would disagree with your "not an absense of evidence" requirement with his famous quote "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" ;) (Doyle is at least as cool as Douglas Adams...)


To whittle down the possible to just one and at such a young age is a staggering achievement! It took God billions of years just to make this dumb thread happen. I hear there's a waiter position at the far end of the universe. Could be a good gig for you until of course the big gig opens up.

Message edited by author 2013-06-21 22:01:01.
06/25/2013 10:25:06 AM · #96
The followers of the religious Weltanschauung act in accordance with the old maxim: the best defence is attack. ‘What’, they ask, ‘is this science that presumes to depreciate our religion, which has brought salvation and comfort to millions of men for many thousands of years? What has science for its part so far accomplished? What more can be expected of it? On its own admission, it is incapable of comforting or ennobling us. We will leave that on one side, therefore, though it is by no means easy to give up such benefits. But what of its teaching? Can it tell us how the world began, and what fate is in store for it? Can it even paint for us a coherent picture of the universe, and show us where the unexplained phenomena of life fit in, and how spiritual forces are able to operate on inert matter? If it could do that we should not refuse it our respect. But it has done nothing of the sort, not one single problem of this kind has it solved. It gives us fragments of alleged knowledge, which it cannot harmonise with one another, it collects observations of uniformities from the totality of events, and dignifies them with the name of laws and subjects them to its hazardous interpretations. And with what a small degree of certitude does it establish its conclusions! All that it teaches is only provisionally true; what is prized to-day as the highest wisdom is overthrown tomorrow and experimentally replaced by something else. The latest error is then given the name of truth. And to this truth we are asked to sacrifice our highest good!’

If one wishes to form a true estimate of the full grandeur of religion, one must keep in mind what it undertakes to do for men. It gives them information about the source and origin of the universe, it assures them of protection and final happiness amid the changing vicissitudes of life, and it guides their thoughts and motions by means of precepts which are backed by the whole force of its authority.

Excerpts from A Philosophy of Life by Sigmund Freud
06/25/2013 11:19:27 AM · #97
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Discussion on "God of the Gaps" and rainbows

here's a somewhat on topic video. It's quite entertaining, and I was in the audience for it.


Blah Blah blah. God of the Gaps is a very poor argument for or against. Where else would you expect to find a non-scientific process? Within scientific understanding? Of course not. It also only pertains to "scientism" where the only acceptable evidence for any truth is scientific in nature. We know the real world does not operate with this premise and we know scientism is self-defeating. God of the Gaps, as a counterargument against God, is bush league at best.


You are losing "rationality" with each condescending post. Thus is not about refuting the existence of God, but establishing that the attempt to scientifically prove that existence, or the existence of your own personal God, is silly.


I don't mean to be condescending, but, dammit, READ what I'm writing. Don't assume you know what I'm writing and then respond to your assumptions.

EDIT: Robert beat me to it.


I took the time to read everything, again.

Correct me if I am wrong- you are using the "multiverse fine tuning theory" not as proof of the existence of a "God" inasmuch, but rather, as the basis for the rationality of the premise that God may exist?
06/25/2013 12:06:34 PM · #98
Originally posted by blindjustice:

I took the time to read everything, again.

Correct me if I am wrong- you are using the "multiverse fine tuning theory" not as proof of the existence of a "God" inasmuch, but rather, as the basis for the rationality of the premise that God may exist?


I appreciate your effort. You aren't far, but you are incorrectly conflating two ideas, the "multiverse" and the "fine tuning" of our universe. The latter is the "problem", as it were. The former is one of the possible solutions (I made a list of possible solutions and it stood as #3). The point is that solution #1 (which invokes God) and solution #3 (the multiverse) are on equal footing for people who require evidential, scientific proof of concepts (because neither is open to such evidence). If we want to try to hash it out between the two ideas we are forced to make philosophical arguments which are, of course, "squishier" in the firmness of their conclusions.

EDIT: I'll relist the possible solutions below just to be clear:

1) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but an active entity (ie. God) has ensured that it is so, so that we can come into being.
2) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but just by luck the combination that exists supports life.
3) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but there are such a vast number of other universes that it is not unlikely that at least one of them supports life.
4) There are as yet undiscovered reasons why the apparent fine-tuning is not highly unlikely.

Message edited by author 2013-06-25 12:07:37.
06/25/2013 12:27:32 PM · #99
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


1) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but an active entity (ie. God) has ensured that it is so, so that we can come into being.
2) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but just by luck the combination that exists supports life.
3) The fine-tuning is highly unlikely, but there are such a vast number of other universes that it is not unlikely that at least one of them supports life.
4) There are as yet undiscovered reasons why the apparent fine-tuning is not highly unlikely.


Meh.

You really did miss a ton of options, not the least of which is a state of recycling - meaning that shit resets itself until the right equilibrium is reached.

The other issue is this: Even if it's extremely unlikely, there's no reason it couldn't have been just right, the first time, and with no other reason that pure and total chance.

..

Ignoring that - I think you darn right know that I don't actually care if there's a god or not - the only thing I have any concern for is religion and the list of reasons why I think we need to abandon such group based magical thinking. You seem to be able to admit that we can't measure or objectively observe God, and yet in the next breath you'll be able to tell me exactly what he has said to you, and what he wants for you, and how much he loves you, and how he hates these other people, etc, etc, etc... Why you can't see how that's just massive cognitive dissonance just baffles me.
06/25/2013 01:15:35 PM · #100
The easiest summary to your objections Cory is that I do not subscribe to "scientism". Only under those auspices do we run into "cognitive dissonance" (to use your words).

An oscillating universe would fit under #3 although most versions of an oscillating universe have been shown to be impossible by Hawkins et al. due to thermodynamic limitations.

The extremely unlikely universe is covered under #2, no?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/24/2021 11:29:35 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/24/2021 11:29:35 PM EST.