Hello from KC's brother
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2012, 02:02 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 01:03 PM)Magoo Wrote:  TERSE AND DEADLY INCOMING!!!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

Tongue

Lol Magoo.

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
22-10-2012, 02:20 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 01:58 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 01:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Hell, I'd convert for really good doughnuts. Yes

As long as they're glazed jelly-filled. Consider
...and with small chocolate crosses on them. Drinking Beverage

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
22-10-2012, 02:20 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 12:19 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 08:06 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Oh hot dang, I've got me a real genuine question.

What does your name mean newcomer? I googled it and got a company and this thread.

Dang, just when you thought you were being original Weeping

Zoe be on yer way, is what the name means. Tongue

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
22-10-2012, 02:24 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 01:03 PM)Magoo Wrote:  TERSE AND DEADLY INCOMING!!!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

Tongue

Lol Magoo.

I hope you are not getting offended when I say that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 02:31 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 02:24 PM)Magoo Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  Lol Magoo.

I hope you are not getting offended when I say that.

Not me...I hope he is offended! Big Grin

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
22-10-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 02:31 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 02:24 PM)Magoo Wrote:  I hope you are not getting offended when I say that.

Not me...I hope he is offended! Big Grin

Really. Some 'terse and deadly' AA. Tongue

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
22-10-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 12:29 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 12:11 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  I'll answer them for you good sir. Briefly and to the point:

1). I don't believe science proves or disproves God. There is no empirical evidence for God in science. My belief has more to do with theological and metaphysical reasons, namely faith.
I'm afraid there's not much to discuss about if your belief is faith-based.

(22-10-2012 12:11 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  However, I do think that the fine tuning of the universe, though not absolute proof of God, are compatible with theistic belief and point towards it.
Concluding that because we currently don't have a coherent scientific theory to explain something, god must have done it, is Bronze Age thinking.

"God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." [sic]

"The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life." [sic]

"We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe." [sic]

(22-10-2012 12:11 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  Also, the moral law. Moral creatures are exactly what we should expect to see in evolution if a moral God is guiding it.
Care to elaborate on that point? What moral law are you talking about? What do you understand by "moral creatures"?

(22-10-2012 12:11 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  3) Yes, I consider myself to be honest about evidence. Which is why I have changed my beliefs from a YEC dispensationalists Arminian fundamentalists to an EC/TE Reformed perspective.
If your belief is based on faith instead of evidence, my question becomes obsolete. Thanks for answering nonetheless.

I am not arguing a God of the gaps. There is a different between saying something is “proof” and “points towards.” I am not an advocate of the God of the gaps theory of ID. Rather, the argument for fine-tuning uses science without divine action to reveal the great precision of the universe. Thus, fine-tuning is described in terms of physical constants and the initial conditions of our universe, etc. Unlike the arguments of ID and irreducible complexity, the argument from fine-tuning does not try to draw attention to where science has failed. Its goal is to show how science has revealed the intricate balance of the universe in which we live.
You could argue that science could one day explain the beginnings of these delicately balanced features. However, I would argue that there are a few things to keep in mind. . One of the things being that I find it very unlikely that a scientific theory could explain away the improbabilities of our Universe without raising some other improbabilities, such as this is all just a happy accident or the multiverse theory (which I will address more since you brought it up). Also, an argument for fine-tuning is unlike a GOG argument in that it is not intended to prove God’s existence. Albeit, while it is true that fine-tuning adds credence to belief in God, I think that such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of belief in God. I do think that fine-tuning leads many people to consider the possibility of the existence of God. However, the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence assures me that it also cannot prove it. I see fine-tuning as a feature of the universe that is in accord with theistic belief. I think that a deeper scientific explanation of these features would not ruin its usefulness as a pointer to God. Now to your appeal to a multiverse: Theism is discounted by its appeal to something (i.e. God) that cannot be empirically proven, but you use the same logic in an appeal to a multiverse, which itself cannot be proven empirically? Where is the logic in that?

Since we are on the subject of quantum mechanics, one last thing to note is that the finest of all fine tuning takes place on the quantum level. My understanding of quantum theory is that it suggests that there should be an energy attached to space itself. This vacuum, which is ironically called empty space, is not just“empty space.” There are vacuum fluctuations which happen in an ongoing manner in the form of “seething mass.” In this mass there are things coming into being and going out of being all the time. The implication is that while there is nothing there, that doesn't mean nothing is going on. These fluctuations generate zero point energy, which is spread out over the whole of space. So there is energy associated with space. Then there is dark energy, which is causing the expansion of the universe. Here is my point: when we estimate how much energy there should be in space it turns out to be a way more than there should be. But, when we see the amount of energy there actually is per volume in space, it turns out to be minuscule in relation to what is expected. It turns out to be smaller by a factor of 10-120. This means that there had to be some fantastical cancellation that took place to turn the large number estimated into the tiny number that is observed. If this hadn't taken place you and I wouldn't be here having this intriguing discussion, nor would we be here to observe it. For a significantly higher energy would simply have blown the whole thing to crap, ripping it apart too fast for anything to really happen. . Now, I think that is the finest tuning that we know in the universe (one part in 10120).
Thus, we have to consider that we definitely live in a universe that is fine-tuned. You know as well as I do, that the contention is not in the evidence, but what we make of the evidence (its significance). I hope this explains better where I am coming from.

I'll get to your question on morality soon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zoebion's post
22-10-2012, 03:31 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 03:10 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 12:29 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I'm afraid there's not much to discuss about if your belief is faith-based.

Concluding that because we currently don't have a coherent scientific theory to explain something, god must have done it, is Bronze Age thinking.

"God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." [sic]

"The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life." [sic]

"We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe." [sic]

Care to elaborate on that point? What moral law are you talking about? What do you understand by "moral creatures"?

If your belief is based on faith instead of evidence, my question becomes obsolete. Thanks for answering nonetheless.

I am not arguing a God of the gaps. There is a different between saying something is “proof” and “points towards.” I am not an advocate of the God of the gaps theory of ID. Rather, the argument for fine-tuning uses science without divine action to reveal the great precision of the universe. Thus, fine-tuning is described in terms of physical constants and the initial conditions of our universe, etc. Unlike the arguments of ID and irreducible complexity, the argument from fine-tuning does not try to draw attention to where science has failed. Its goal is to show how science has revealed the intricate balance of the universe in which we live.
You could argue that science could one day explain the beginnings of these delicately balanced features. However, I would argue that there are a few things to keep in mind. . One of the things being that I find it very unlikely that a scientific theory could explain away the improbabilities of our Universe without raising some other improbabilities, such as this is all just a happy accident or the multiverse theory (which I will address more since you brought it up). Also, an argument for fine-tuning is unlike a GOG argument in that it is not intended to prove God’s existence. Albeit, while it is true that fine-tuning adds credence to belief in God, I think that such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of belief in God. I do think that fine-tuning leads many people to consider the possibility of the existence of God. However, the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence assures me that it also cannot prove it. I see fine-tuning as a feature of the universe that is in accord with theistic belief. I think that a deeper scientific explanation of these features would not ruin its usefulness as a pointer to God. Now to your appeal to a multiverse: Theism is discounted by its appeal to something (i.e. God) that cannot be empirically proven, but you use the same logic in an appeal to a multiverse, which itself cannot be proven empirically? Where is the logic in that?

Since we are on the subject of quantum mechanics, one last thing to note is that the finest of all fine tuning takes place on the quantum level. My understanding of quantum theory is that it suggests that there should be an energy attached to space itself. This vacuum, which is ironically called empty space, is not just“empty space.” There are vacuum fluctuations which happen in an ongoing manner in the form of “seething mass.” In this mass there are things coming into being and going out of being all the time. The implication is that while there is nothing there, that doesn't mean nothing is going on. These fluctuations generate zero point energy, which is spread out over the whole of space. So there is energy associated with space. Then there is dark energy, which is causing the expansion of the universe. Here is my point: when we estimate how much energy there should be in space it turns out to be a way more than there should be. But, when we see the amount of energy there actually is per volume in space, it turns out to be minuscule in relation to what is expected. It turns out to be smaller by a factor of 10-120. This means that there had to be some fantastical cancellation that took place to turn the large number estimated into the tiny number that is observed. If this hadn't taken place you and I wouldn't be here having this intriguing discussion, nor would we be here to observe it. For a significantly higher energy would simply have blown the whole thing to crap, ripping it apart too fast for anything to really happen. . Now, I think that is the finest tuning that we know in the universe (one part in 10120).
Thus, we have to consider that we definitely live in a universe that is fine-tuned. You know as well as I do, that the contention is not in the evidence, but what we make of the evidence (its significance). I hope this explains better where I am coming from.

I'll get to your question on morality soon.

The "fine tuning" argument is fallacious for two reasons:
  1. It has the cart before the horse;
  2. It assumes changing constants one at a time.

Victor Stenger demolished this argument.

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
22-10-2012, 03:43 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2012 03:40 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 03:10 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  I am not arguing a God of the gaps. There is a different between saying something is “proof” and “points towards.” I am not an advocate of the God of the gaps theory of ID. Rather, the argument for fine-tuning uses science without divine action to reveal the great precision of the universe. Thus, fine-tuning is described in terms of physical constants and the initial conditions of our universe, etc. Unlike the arguments of ID and irreducible complexity, the argument from fine-tuning does not try to draw attention to where science has failed. Its goal is to show how science has revealed the intricate balance of the universe in which we live.
You could argue that science could one day explain the beginnings of these delicately balanced features. However, I would argue that there are a few things to keep in mind. . One of the things being that I find it very unlikely that a scientific theory could explain away the improbabilities of our Universe without raising some other improbabilities, such as this is all just a happy accident or the multiverse theory (which I will address more since you brought it up). Also, an argument for fine-tuning is unlike a GOG argument in that it is not intended to prove God’s existence. Albeit, while it is true that fine-tuning adds credence to belief in God, I think that such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of belief in God. I do think that fine-tuning leads many people to consider the possibility of the existence of God. However, the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence assures me that it also cannot prove it. I see fine-tuning as a feature of the universe that is in accord with theistic belief. I think that a deeper scientific explanation of these features would not ruin its usefulness as a pointer to God.
You need to substantiate your claim that the existence of a supposedly fine-tuned Universe points towards the existence of god. I see no reason why that would be true.

(22-10-2012 03:10 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  Now to your appeal to a multiverse: Theism is discounted by its appeal to something (i.e. God) that cannot be empirically proven, but you use the same logic in an appeal to a multiverse, which itself cannot be proven empirically? Where is the logic in that?
I have not and do not appeal to a multiverse. I thought I had clearly marked the citation as a citation ([sic]).

(22-10-2012 03:10 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  Since we are on the subject of quantum mechanics, one last thing to note is that the finest of all fine tuning takes place on the quantum level. My understanding of quantum theory is that it suggests that there should be an energy attached to space itself. This vacuum, which is ironically called empty space, is not just“empty space.” There are vacuum fluctuations which happen in an ongoing manner in the form of “seething mass.” In this mass there are things coming into being and going out of being all the time. The implication is that while there is nothing there, that doesn't mean nothing is going on. These fluctuations generate zero point energy, which is spread out over the whole of space. So there is energy associated with space. Then there is dark energy, which is causing the expansion of the universe. Here is my point: when we estimate how much energy there should be in space it turns out to be a way more than there should be. But, when we see the amount of energy there actually is per volume in space, it turns out to be minuscule in relation to what is expected. It turns out to be smaller by a factor of 10-120. This means that there had to be some fantastical cancellation that took place to turn the large number estimated into the tiny number that is observed. If this hadn't taken place you and I wouldn't be here having this intriguing discussion, nor would we be here to observe it. For a significantly higher energy would simply have blown the whole thing to crap, ripping it apart too fast for anything to really happen. . Now, I think that is the finest tuning that we know in the universe (one part in 10120).
Thus, we have to consider that we definitely live in a universe that is fine-tuned. You know as well as I do, that the contention is not in the evidence, but what we make of the evidence (its significance). I hope this explains better where I am coming from.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the Universe is fine-tuned. How do you go from "fine-tuned Universe" to "god exists"?

Like Chas said, you should take a look at Victor Stenger's take on the fine-tuned Universe.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 12:19 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 08:06 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Oh hot dang, I've got me a real genuine question.

What does your name mean newcomer? I googled it and got a company and this thread.

Dang, just when you thought you were being original Weeping My version is a compilation of three Greek words/concepts; 1)zo/zoe is the word that speaks of the life that is given through Christ. 2) bio(s) speaks of the course of the natural life. 3) ebion is the verb form of bios and means the course of ones natural life. These three words seem to sum up my evolutionary creationists beliefs, so I put them all together.

OR . . . Your name is a near-anagram of a poster we already have:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid184770

A mere coincidence? Hmm . . . Consider

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cufflink's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: