Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2013, 01:26 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 01:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it can't. You can see the universe. You can't see any gods. One exists. One has no evidence for it.
You really are desperate, BlowJob.

If you can see other universes, or a multiverse, then you have powers and abilities far beyond normal trolls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 02:02 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 09:46 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 01:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 01:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it can't. You can see the universe. You can't see any gods. One exists. One has no evidence for it.
You really are desperate, BlowJob.

If you can see other universes, or a multiverse, then you have powers and abilities far beyond normal trolls.

So a hypothetical argument for an unproven multiverse can be used for a god?

1. The hypothesis is unproven, and thus, proves neither a multiverse, let alone a god.

2. Even if it was proven, that still would not prove a god.

3. Even if you could somehow use this to prove a god, it wouldn't prove it was your God, or that Jesus was his son, or that he was born of a virgin, or that any other doctrinal 'truth' was valid, nor would it prove the validity of any religious writings.


This is what's known as FAIL. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 02:13 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 01:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 12:04 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Einstein's greatest blunder.

Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with
Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was
the biggest blunder of his life.

-- George Gamow, My World Line


Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the "biggest blunder" of his life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Now if you read the rest of the wiki you'll notice it can have many values depending on the math you are using.

I agree it can have many values. The question is why does it happen to have a value that allows for life?

Brian Greene suggest that the fine tuning of the cosmological constant is evidence for a multi verse, but the same argument can be made for the existence of God.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw
All those alternate values describe the world we have now, using different mathematics.

Now it's silly to think that because we exist the universe exists for us or on some special way that allows us to exist. We are the result of the universe, the universe is not the result of us.


I love the part where he uses multiple universes to show that all the constants are different in other universes, IE the multiverse theory.

“The history of physics has had that a lot,” says Krauss. “Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
15-03-2013, 02:10 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 02:04 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 01:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I agree it can have many values. The question is why does it happen to have a value that allows for life?

Brian Greene suggest that the fine tuning of the cosmological constant is evidence for a multi verse, but the same argument can be made for the existence of God.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw

I love the part where he uses multiple universes to show that all the constants are different in other universes, IE the multiverse theory.

“The history of physics has had that a lot,” says Krauss. “Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”




If I were an atheist I would believe in a mulitverse simply on the basis of the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. Most of you in this forum would give me a pass even though there isn't a shred of evidence for the multi verse that can't be also used as evidence for an intelligent creator.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 02:29 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 02:51 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 02:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 02:04 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  I love the part where he uses multiple universes to show that all the constants are different in other universes, IE the multiverse theory.

“The history of physics has had that a lot,” says Krauss. “Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”




If I were an atheist I would believe in a mulitverse simply on the basis of the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. Most of you in this forum would give me a pass even though there isn't a shred of evidence for the multi verse that can't be also used as evidence for an intelligent creator.

I would say the same thing for the theist.
If there are an infinite amount of universes, the multiverse, then we can postulate this argument.


1) It is possible that a god exists.
2) If it is possible that a god exists, then a god exists in some possible universe.
3) If a god exists in some possible universe, then it exists in every possible universe.
4) If a god exists in every possible universe, then it exists in our universe.
5) If a god exists in our universe, then a god exists.
6) Therefore, a god exists.
The fine tuning argument fails because it shows that rather having one planet, god finely tuned a universe in such a way that about 90% of it is hostile to life.

A vid showing the absurdity of fine tuning.



The multiverse is another negation of fine tuning, however it's not something I'd use until there is more evidence for it.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
15-03-2013, 02:50 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 02:29 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 02:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If I were an atheist I would believe in a mulitverse simply on the basis of the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. Most of you in this forum would give me a pass even though there isn't a shred of evidence for the multi verse that can't be also used as evidence for an intelligent creator.

I would say the same thing for the theist.
If there are an infinite amount of universes, the multiverse, then we can postulate this argument.


1) It is possible that a god exists.
2) If it is possible that a god exists, then a god exists in some possible universe.
3) If a god exists in some possible universe, then it exists in every possible universe.
4) If a god exists in every possible universe, then it exists in our universe.
5) If a god exists in our universe, then a god exists.
6) Therefore, a god exists.
The fine tuning argument fails because it shows that rather having one planet, god finely tuned a universe in such a way that about 90% of it is hostile to life.





The multiverse is another negation of fine tuning, however it's not something I'd use until there is more evidence for it.

If you are not going to use God or the multi verse, how is it then that you explain a constant that is tuned to 120 decimal places?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 02:58 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 09:46 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you are not going to use God or the multi verse, how is it then that you explain a constant that is tuned to 120 decimal places?


How about not assuming that it could be anything but what it currently is, until better evidence presents itself?

Maybe wait until observation give us another, better supported theory that doesn't make use of either gods of extra universes?

How about not jumping to presuppositions because you need an answer RIGHT NOW?



Why is doubt and uncertainty so hard for you to grasp?



Also, did you even watch the TED Talk? It does nothing to assert an intelligent agent, gods, or the super natural. It ultimately comes down to using the cosmic inflation theory to posit the possibility of near infinite additional universes, allowing for many universes that hypothetically have different constants. Assuming both of those premises (neither of which has been proven) allows Greene to posit that with enough rolls of the dice a universe with our cosmolgical constant could arise, leading to our universe, and our planet, capable of supporting our life. This goes back to what EVERYONE ELSE has been telling you; the universe is not fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for the universe.


FAIL. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 03:00 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 02:29 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  I would say the same thing for the theist.
If there are an infinite amount of universes, the multiverse, then we can postulate this argument.


1) It is possible that a god exists.
2) If it is possible that a god exists, then a god exists in some possible universe.
3) If a god exists in some possible universe, then it exists in every possible universe.
4) If a god exists in every possible universe, then it exists in our universe.
5) If a god exists in our universe, then a god exists.
6) Therefore, a god exists.
The fine tuning argument fails because it shows that rather having one planet, god finely tuned a universe in such a way that about 90% of it is hostile to life.





The multiverse is another negation of fine tuning, however it's not something I'd use until there is more evidence for it.

If you are not going to use God or the multi verse, how is it then that you explain a constant that is tuned to 120 decimal places?

Quantum field theory

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Same page. Basically it means they need to work on their maths, and figure out what is going on.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 03:06 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 03:00 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you are not going to use God or the multi verse, how is it then that you explain a constant that is tuned to 120 decimal places?

Quantum field theory

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Same page. Basically it means they need to work on their maths, and figure out what is going on.

Well if I am going to believe the laws of physics are all wrong, I might as well believe in God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 03:12 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Well if I am going to believe the laws of physics are all wrong, I might as well believe in God.


Fallacy of Equivocation and Special Pleading. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: