Hello from KC's brother
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 02:20 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 12:19 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  Dang, just when you thought you were being original Weeping

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

Aw fuck Cantor, now I'm gonna start calling him ZoeBeGone. You really are an evil fuck. Evil_monster

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
22-10-2012, 06:16 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(21-10-2012 07:30 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  Hey, my name is Jared and I am originally from Baton Rouge. I live in North Carolina where I serve as a pastor. I am a Calvinist and an evolutionary creationist, and am looking forward to meeting new people and having some interesting dialogue. Also, KC is my brother and our beliefs are almost identical Smile My wife also just had twins, so I won't be on the site as much as I would like to be right now. Give me a couple months and I'll be more active.

Couldn't have gone with a -chosen name to keep things simple could ya? Dodgy

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
22-10-2012, 06:44 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
Welcome, nice to meet you.

One rule, no upside down dog photos! Your brother has that covered, thank you very much.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
22-10-2012, 08:26 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 12:02 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 08:02 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  Welcome to the site! Congrats on the twins- no ones asked for a snack yet? Ohmy

By snack I am assuming you are asking if the twins wanted to eat yet? It's funny, because sometimes their eating habits remind me of college binge drinking, only with milk Undecided

Just in case you are serious with your reply, the question was in jest. "Baby Eating Atheists" as it were. Tongue

(22-10-2012 12:29 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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.

Either that or it's just the Argument from Ignorance. "Because we don't understand exactly how the universe came to be as it is, magic man done it."


Also, welcome to the forum. I don't know much about your brother, but from what I have seen of him I have no issues. Probably because I don't read the threads on religion that he has started though. Wink Hopefully it will be the same with you. Smile

Contribute to the Community Resource!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 10:41 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 06:44 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Welcome, nice to meet you.

One rule, no upside down dog photos! Your brother has that covered, thank you very much.

Thumbsup

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(22-10-2012 03:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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. 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.

Wow, I must be in Bizzaro world where the atheist are now arguing like the YEC's with dogmatic statements and dismissing things that they don't like. Hobo

The debate is far from settled. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Stenger are in an ongoing debate about this, and the issue is far from over. Barnes addresses your concerns here in his rebuttal which is scheduled to appear in PASA http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112...4647v1.pdf

Here is Stenger's response

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vsten...allacy.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2012 03:31 PM by Chas.)
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(23-10-2012 03:06 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 03:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Wow, I must be in Bizzaro world where the atheist are now arguing like the YEC's with dogmatic statements and dismissing things that they don't like. Hobo

No, I am dismissing a logically unsound argument.

Quote:The debate is far from settled. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Stenger are in an ongoing debate about this, and the issue is far from over. Barnes addresses your concerns here in his rebuttal which is scheduled to appear in PASA http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112...4647v1.pdf

Here is Stenger's response

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vsten...allacy.pdf

Their debate may or may not be ongoing, but mine isn't.

The cart is still before the horse. Wanting the universe to be designed doesn't make it designed. We are here because the nature of the universe allows for us to be here. That's it, that's all she wrote.

There is no meaning, there is no fine tuning, it 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
23-10-2012, 03:45 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
Hello Zoebion - so... your parents had sex more than once, huh? Probably a happy heathen Ape somewhere in the family tree, no doubt. Wink

You'll find a lot of interesting things throughout the forums. It's a relaxed international atmosphere and the perspective is quite varied. I'm sure you'll find it a comfortable getaway from the trauma of being at odds with those around you whom you often feel "just don't get it". I think we all relate to that feeling, from time to time. Shy

Twins - wow - you're gonna be tired for about ten years. If you're not freaked out yet, you will be. Thumbsup Congratulations.

Welcome to the forum. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
23-10-2012, 11:45 PM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
This fine tuning... you say you don't regard it as *evidence* but as... something like a pointer, something that gives you a suspicion that the universe is designed?

Chas's contention is that we don't know that the universe is fine tuned. I'm more inclined to go with that too. If you're an evolutionist, then you know that *life adapts*, right? So the whole bullshit of being exactly the right distance from the sun - if we had evolved on an Earth closer to the Sun, then life would have adapted differently, and similarly for further away.

I am aware that there are other arguments for fine tuning but again, these can be answered by invoking... dun dun dun... the anthropic principle Smile Which says "Oh lookee, we're here on Earth wondering wtf just happened" - the key point is that if the universe constants had been sufficiently fucked up we'd never have evolved to question why they were so beautifully fine tuned for evolution.

Can you offer an alternative view, for why you would *disregard* for example, the anthropic principle? For why you *would* believe that the universe *was* in fact fine tuned for life? Not just life but human life. Stuck out on this speck of dirt in the middle of nowhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
24-10-2012, 05:56 AM
RE: Hello from KC's brother
(23-10-2012 03:06 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  Wow, I must be in Bizzaro world where the atheist are now arguing like the YEC's with dogmatic statements and dismissing things that they don't like. Hobo

What's to like? It's a stupid argument for stupid people and their stupid god. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: