34 Scientific Reasons for God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2012, 12:34 AM
Video 34 Scientific Reasons for God?
Normally, I try not to get involved in debate with theists. I avoid it like the plague since they have no evidence to support their claim, but what really pisses me off is when people start using fancy wording, junk science, a few charts that they say miraculously prove God's existence without actually proving anything. Such people I like to call parrots, they can talk, but they really don't know the language.

A=B, therefore A and B equals God's existence? No. A=B because A=B. There is no need for the God middle man. It's just the way things came to be. But he calls these things "absolute constants" like the speed of light, gravity, thermodynamics, and uses the "someone must have set these laws up" argument. He posted a video on YouTube with 34 Scientific reasons God exists. Can someone that really knows the subject debunk his wild claims? It is an embarrassment to human knowledge.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2012, 01:01 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2012 01:06 AM by Valdyr.)
RE: 34 Scientific Reasons for God?
My response to fine-tuning arguments: Yes, it is very impressive that we live in a fine-tuned universe. But first, we don't know that the universe could have been some other way. Second, even if it could, then so what? Why are universes which contain life "better" than ones that don't, or are somehow special, beyond the value attributed to them by the very life forms which inhabit them? Fourth, this is like water in a glass (liquid takes the shape of its container) going "Wow, this glass must have been designed for me because I'm so mighty and special! This is a remarkable fact which demands explanation immediately!" Fifth, and this is related to three, while the question of why a given universe has some constants rather than others is an interesting scientific question, there is again no reason we should privilege universes which do allow for life. It's like saying that because we humans playing a game of dice value a score of 6 more than any other, that rolling a six demands a higher standard of explanation than rolling a one; that is, beyond "the probability of rolling six on a fair die is 0.6." Just because we prefer six! The narcissism of humanity at play again. And finally, it frankly doesn't matter that fine-tuning is (possibly) improbable, because I think theism is so confused that it is thus vanishingly improbable.

In conclusion, fine-tuning arguments are stupid and rely on odd philosophical and statistical assumptions being read into the physics. There is no need to argue with the science because the statistical thinking and philosophy being done is so poor that it's where the real problem lies.

NOTE: It is worth noting that I do think the universe is "fine tuned" in the scientific sense, meaning that I don't actually dispute the scientific conclusion that from everything we know about life, it couldn't have existed with wildly different parameters, and that it is in some sense "special" that our universe has them, just as rolling a six is "special." In this I am opposed to certain atheists, e.g. Victor Stenger, who claim that the universe is in fact not "fine-tuned" at all. See a recent survey article by LA Barnes (linked below) for an excellent reply to Stenger's claims, and a summary of the contemporary status of fine-tuning research in the cosmology community.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Valdyr's post
20-01-2012, 01:02 AM
RE: 34 Scientific Reasons for God?
Seems like it's getting taken care of, but I added my 2 cents to the comments anyway.

Ultimately it comes down to the observer. The universe is perfect for us, because we're here to observe it. If we weren't here, then we wouldn't notice the inhospitable environment it has for us. It's also similar to a Dawkins quote about how we are fortunate to be born, out of all the possible people who could have been born, we simply had the winning ticket.

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2012, 01:09 AM
RE: 34 Scientific Reasons for God?
I didn't post on the video as my reply was too long, but please feel free to lift from my post for the debate in the comments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2012, 01:50 AM
RE: 34 Scientific Reasons for God?
Or... that the octopus has better eye sight than we do, so how are we to not assume that the universe is fine-tuned for the octopus and not us? =p Maybe that's a bad example, but I like it =p
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2012, 09:12 AM
RE: 34 Scientific Reasons for God?
(20-01-2012 12:34 AM)89ace Wrote:  Normally, I try not to get involved in debate with theists. I avoid it like the plague since they have no evidence to support their claim, but what really pisses me off is when people start using fancy wording, junk science, a few charts that they say miraculously prove God's existence without actually proving anything. Such people I like to call parrots, they can talk, but they really don't know the language.

A=B, therefore A and B equals God's existence? No. A=B because A=B. There is no need for the God middle man. It's just the way things came to be. But he calls these things "absolute constants" like the speed of light, gravity, thermodynamics, and uses the "someone must have set these laws up" argument. He posted a video on YouTube with 34 Scientific reasons God exists. Can someone that really knows the subject debunk his wild claims? It is an embarrassment to human knowledge.

The 'fine-tuning' argument is infantile. It has the cart before the horse, and it has the hidden assumption that we were supposed to be here.

The universe is what it is; we are what we are because the universe is what it is.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-01-2012, 10:32 AM
RE: 34 Scientific Reasons for God?
(20-01-2012 01:01 AM)Valdyr Wrote:  My response to fine-tuning arguments: Yes, it is very impressive that we live in a fine-tuned universe. But first, we don't know that the universe could have been some other way. Second, even if it could, then so what? Why are universes which contain life "better" than ones that don't, or are somehow special, beyond the value attributed to them by the very life forms which inhabit them? Fourth, this is like water in a glass (liquid takes the shape of its container) going "Wow, this glass must have been designed for me because I'm so mighty and special! This is a remarkable fact which demands explanation immediately!" Fifth, and this is related to three, while the question of why a given universe has some constants rather than others is an interesting scientific question, there is again no reason we should privilege universes which do allow for life. It's like saying that because we humans playing a game of dice value a score of 6 more than any other, that rolling a six demands a higher standard of explanation than rolling a one; that is, beyond "the probability of rolling six on a fair die is 0.6." Just because we prefer six! The narcissism of humanity at play again. And finally, it frankly doesn't matter that fine-tuning is (possibly) improbable, because I think theism is so confused that it is thus vanishingly improbable.

In conclusion, fine-tuning arguments are stupid and rely on odd philosophical and statistical assumptions being read into the physics. There is no need to argue with the science because the statistical thinking and philosophy being done is so poor that it's where the real problem lies.

NOTE: It is worth noting that I do think the universe is "fine tuned" in the scientific sense, meaning that I don't actually dispute the scientific conclusion that from everything we know about life, it couldn't have existed with wildly different parameters, and that it is in some sense "special" that our universe has them, just as rolling a six is "special." In this I am opposed to certain atheists, e.g. Victor Stenger, who claim that the universe is in fact not "fine-tuned" at all. See a recent survey article by LA Barnes (linked below) for an excellent reply to Stenger's claims, and a summary of the contemporary status of fine-tuning research in the cosmology community.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647

There is a good book by Paul Davies that talks about this "Cosmic Jackpot, Why The Universe Is Just Right For Life"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: