Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2013, 01:01 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 08:13 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 04:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Without absolute knowledge of the universe, such probability calculations are terribly inaccurate. They are also only ever posited by creationists and those with biblical agendas, so they're not built to be mathematically sound, they're made to sound impressive to laymen (i.e. sheep like you). They have nothing but a long list of numbers, and NOTHING explaining how they came about determining all of those base numbers that they used for their calculation. Basically, they made them all up to fit their ideological needs, it's an a priori conclusion. They didn't determine the numbers, then draw a conclusion from them. They had a conclusion, and made up numbers to fit their predetermined answer. That isn't even bad science, it's flat our fraud and propaganda.

Try harder troll... Drinking Beverage
Sure.

and these scientists are all delirating......

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christ...theory.htm

Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.


George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”


Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”


Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”


Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”


Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”


Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”


Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”


Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”


Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”


Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”


Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”


Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”


Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”


Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”


Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”


Quote mining and argument from authority. I don't care what you claim they have said, I only care if you can make a valid case with reason. You have failed to do so.

Also, my earlier critique of your bullshit probability example still stands. It is just fraud and propaganda, and that you would use such in defense of your view point speaks volumes.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 07:24 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Sorry, I just need to point out that citation is not a negative part of argument from authority, in fact, it is the bread and butter of academia and one of the most important mechanisms of peer review.

If I write a paper and say, "I don't think that the proposed 2015 manned mission to Alpha Centauri using a space craft with an anti matter reactor is feasible because according to Krause (1999), we simply cannot produce anti matter in the needed quantity fast enough, because NASA, "no longer has the payload ability to ferry the requisite materials to the International Space station for construction," (NASA, 2009, p. 347) and because Einstein (1905) suggests that E=MC2, meaning we will not be able to achieve the needed speeds to arrive there within the proposed 10-year time-frame," that is argument from authority but it is NOT a logical fallacy. Citation is in fact a REQUISITE part of writing academic papers.

If the authority is a legitimate expert and there is consensus among other legitimate experts, then the argument from authority has NOT been applied fallaciously. It is ONLY applied fallaciously if those two criteria are not met.

Hey, EKills.

In this particular case, you asserted that ONLY creationists with biblical agendas make the argument in question. God provided a list of scientists from various fields making the same argument. That's a straight up refutation of your assertion.

On the subject of fine tuning,

FACT: The universe is fine tuned to support life. By that it is meant that if that tuning was slightly different, neither matter nor life would be possible.

ASSERTION: The universe has no purpose and the fact that it is fine tuned for life is coincidence.

ASSERTION: The universe was created by God for the purpose of supporting life and God fine tuned the universe for life.

BOTH assertions are CONJECTURE, not fact.

NEITHER assertion supports or refutes philosophical naturalism.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 07:24 AM)Ghost Wrote:  On the subject of fine tuning,

FACT: The universe is fine tuned to support life. By that it is meant that if that tuning was slightly different, neither matter nor life would be possible.

ASSERTION: The universe has no purpose and the fact that it is fine tuned for life is coincidence.

ASSERTION: The universe was created by God for the purpose of supporting life and God fine tuned the universe for life.

BOTH assertions are CONJECTURE, not fact.

NEITHER assertion supports or refutes philosophical naturalism.

The 'FACT' is not a fact. At best, it is very poorly stated by getting the cart before the horse.

Life as we know it is fine-tuned to the environment as we know it.

The use of the term 'fine-tuned' as regards the environment is not useful.

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
16-03-2013, 08:00 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Hey, Chas.

That's just semantics. Point is, we know that if the values were slightly different that life wouldn't be possible. If it helps you to sleep to leave the words fine tuned out of it, so be it, but the fact remains.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 08:05 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 08:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

That's just semantics. Point is, we know that if the values were slightly different that life wouldn't be possible. If it helps you to sleep to leave the words fine tuned out of it, so be it, but the fact remains.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

'Fine-tuned' implies agency. The semantics are important to the discussion.

The only fact is that if things were different, they'd be different.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
16-03-2013, 08:41 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
You know, I never really was partial to this "fine-tuned" stuff.

I mean, fine tuned for what exactly?

So that life might develop on some vague, tiny, insignificant space rock?

So that apes who's greatest claim to fame, or rather infamy, is the species capacity for supreme arrogance and destruction?

What a pathetic reason to tune an entire universe.


You'll have to excuse me, when I get tired, I get a tad uppity.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
16-03-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 08:41 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  You know, I never really was partial to this "fine-tuned" stuff.

I mean, fine tuned for what exactly?

So that life might develop on some vague, tiny, insignificant space rock?

So that apes who's greatest claim to fame, or rather infamy, is the species capacity for supreme arrogance and destruction?

What a pathetic reason to tune an entire universe.

Well, that's really the point. It is an insufferably anthropocentric concept; small-minded, arrogant, and ignorant.

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
16-03-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Let's be imaginative for a moment.

Imagine that the universe isn't 13.7 billion years old. Imagine instead that it is something more like 50 quintillion years old and that there have been about a billion universes before this one, expanding, crunching, banging, expanding, crunching, banging, over and over, about a billion times. This is one theory that has some support of physicists.

As many cosmologists have suggested, at the point of the big bang, the universe has no physical laws, it's just hot and dense. In the first few Planck-times after the big bang, those natural laws get established.

So the natural laws of this imaginary universe might have been created about a billion times. From scratch. Possibly different every time.

Random different laws with each big bang.

Most of those billion universes turned out to have "poorly tuned" random constants and maybe never formed stars, planets, or life, just going from bang to crunch as a shapeless mass of matter and energy. Some of them might have had stars and planets but still no life. Maybe a few, maybe even only one, certainly at least this one, had the right combination of "finely tuned" random constants to support life.

We're not "lucky" to live in this universe; it's just simply that we couldn't live in the others because they were, by random chance, incapable of sustaining life.

Conversely, it is inevitable that we live in this universe because it is capable of supporting life and so freaking huge that, being capable of it means that it will inevitably happen, probably lots of times, given the vast size and lengths of time involved.

This is not random. This is not improbable. This is not intelligently designed. This is just inevitable - the only randomness is the unpredictability of when it would happen.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
16-03-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Hey, Asceptic.

Well, that's pretty much the notion of the multiverse. Ours has that 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000138 number (however many actual zeros there are) and every other universe (assuming there are other universes) has a different number and a whole bunch of them would be tuned as such as they would not be able to support the creation of matter, let alone life.

It's a fine theory. It's a fascinating theory. But it's very far from being proven.

We know of this universe and no other.

Hey, Chas.

I disagree. Fine-tuned does not imply agency. Saying that the universe HAS BEEN fine tuned does. But saying that it IS fine tuned does not.

The universe IS fine tuned for life because quite minute changes in any number of variables would render the universe incapable of supporting life. That is a fact.

Asserting that it is that way just cuz, or because God made it that way is equal measures conjecture.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 11:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Asceptic.

Well, that's pretty much the notion of the multiverse. Ours has that 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000138 number (however many actual zeros there are) and every other universe (assuming there are other universes) has a different number and a whole bunch of them would be tuned as such as they would not be able to support the creation of matter, let alone life.

It's a fine theory. It's a fascinating theory. But it's very far from being proven.

We know of this universe and no other.

Hey, Chas.

I disagree. Fine-tuned does not imply agency. Saying that the universe HAS BEEN fine tuned does. But saying that it IS fine tuned does not.

The universe IS fine tuned for life because quite minute changes in any number of variables would render the universe incapable of supporting life. That is a fact.

Asserting that it is that way just cuz, or because God made it that way is equal measures conjecture.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
The term 'fine-tuned' is both inaccurate and misleading. Quite minute changes would not render life impossible. That is a fact.

We also don't know that the universe could be any other way than it is. There may be zero degrees of freedom.

It is a poorly chosen phrase that leads to poor thinking.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: