interested in the atheist perspective
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
Anti/particle pair creation and annihilation is a demonstrable fact, and "fine tuning" is anything but.
(we evolved to fit into the universe, and to assume otherwise is a degree of cosmic narcissism I can't even begin to comprehend)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
26-11-2014, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2014 03:37 AM by Dom.)
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
I have moved the thread.


I personally think the title is also misleading.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 05:36 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 04:53 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Why does it seem like everything requires a leap of faith when believers want to forcefully pigeonhole any atheist into a “belief”?

Contempalting anything including multiverses requires nothing but a questioning, thinking mind. Now if people went around building houses of worship and praying to the Multiverse then yes, it would be a fair point but no one seems to be doing that. In contrast many do just that to their “Fine Tuner”. “Our Fine Tuner who art in heaven...” etc.

The human race has exactly one data point on what to base what life can and can’t tolerate, where life can exist and how that life evolves. 1.

Furthermore who says life has to exist? If the universe was such that life could not exist then life would not exist. I hate to break this but the universe doesn’t have us in mind. Extrapolate your own comment and change the word “environment” to “Universe” and you have, “We both agree that the universe didn’t evolve to fit the human species. That is obvious/stupid and I don’t think an intelligent fine tuner would suggest so.” I agree with that.

I have no idea why things "seem" some way to you. I don't care for your ideas on what many do with the concept of a fine tuner. I really don't think you understand the strongest form of the fine tuner argument. You think this is a cause and effect? You think extrapolating to Universe means something? No shit the universe didn't evolve to fit the human species.. This is not profound, nor does it make sense.

A fine tuner stance is simple. At some point something interacted with what we call this Universe. This interaction placed a set of values on important interaction outcomes that allowed the formation of the Universe as we know it.

Multiverse stance. There is infinite possibilities, and therefor one Universe would have the values that ours does. This allows the formation of the Universe as we know it.

"Furthermore who says life has to exist?"

-I certainly did not Confused

" If the universe was such that life could not exist then life would not exist."

-profound insight

edit( I don't want to get into a pissing match with you. I'm not trying to bait and switch. My intentions were just to get some ideas bouncing around, not to turn this into a God debate. This is my fault for putting this OP in this section)

You ask a question and get upset with being answered? I didn’t think I was being offensive but apparently you think so.

You suggest that “leaps of faith” somehow apply to the sciences, if this is not what you meant then be more precise with your wording.

“At some point something interacted with what we call this Universe.” - I read this “something” being outside of space-time? Like a god? If this is not what you mean then please clarify.

-profound insight Consider but you don’t want to get into a pissing match. How does that work exactly?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 09:03 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
Quote:I'm not sure what exactly is meant to be implied when one claims to be an atheist?


It means there is no evidence for the god you believe in....or any of the others that humanity has pulled out of its ass in the last 5,000 years.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
26-11-2014, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 09:26 PM by Switz5678.)
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 08:05 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You ask a question and get upset with being answered? I didn’t think I was being offensive but apparently you think so.

You suggest that “leaps of faith” somehow apply to the sciences, if this is not what you meant then be more precise with your wording.

“At some point something interacted with what we call this Universe.” - I read this “something” being outside of space-time? Like a god? If this is not what you mean then please clarify.

-profound insight Consider but you don’t want to get into a pissing match. How does that work exactly?

I'm not upset you answer.. I'm upset with with things like this

"Why does it seem like everything requires a leap of faith when believers want to forcefully pigeonhole any atheist into a “belief”?"

This puts me into a box in which I don't deserve to be in. On this forum I've noticed you get ridiculed for this and your point/ideas gets dismissed right off the bat.

What I meant by a Leap of faith is that when confronted with the precision of these number you can go one of three ways.

1. just a blunt fact about the universe
2. Multiverse
3. Tuner

Multiverse seems to be praised and accepted while Tuner is dismissed off hand. There is zero evidence for either, and both require a jump to an explanation without any support.

Now as for a tuner.. I have no idea. A fine tune believer can't say anything about the nature of the actual tuner. This is why christian trumpeting fine tuning as evidence are misguided
-----
I mean when were talking about the Cosmological constant its is approx

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000​000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (122 zeros)

If it is off by just a little bit say

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000​00000000000000000000000000000000000001 (118 zeros)

then the universe is radically different. I'm probably not the best person to hear this from, and if you get a chance check this video out. The explanations comes from real theoretical physicists

Fabric of the cosmos episode 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRkjhWeo...9Um0BBiibd
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 09:36 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 09:12 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  1. just a blunt fact about the universe
2. Multiverse
3. Tuner

Multiverse seems to be praised and accepted while Tuner is dismissed off hand. There is zero evidence for either, and both require a jump to an explanation without any support.

Now as for a tuner.. I have no idea. A fine tune believer can't say anything about the nature of the actual tuner. This is why christian trumpeting fine tuning as evidence are misguided

The multiverse model is praised by some people because it's coherent. It starts with a understood fact (the universe began to exist) and then posits that the creation of the universe is not necessarily unique. That the conditions that created the universe can give rise to any number of other universes.

It is then supported by a buttload of math I don't understand.

The argument for a "Fine Tuner" isn't coherent. It starts with a assumption that the the various universal constants can be something else and then posits that the constants were set in the specific way they are by some kind of "Intelegent Being." (They frequently then say that they know what that intelligent being is and what he wants us to do with our junk.)

So it takes an idea without evidence, posits a solution to the question raised by that idea and is almost exclusively put forward by people with an obvious agenda. So that's two non-sequiturs and a presupposition bias.

You're comparing apples to rocks. Not only are they dissimilar they don't serve the same purpose.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
26-11-2014, 09:54 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 09:12 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I'm not upset you answer.. I'm upset with with things like this

"Why does it seem like everything requires a leap of faith when believers want to forcefully pigeonhole any atheist into a “belief”?"

This puts me into a box in which I don't deserve to be in. On this forum I've noticed you get ridiculed for this and your point/ideas gets dismissed right off the bat.

And I get my hackles up when things like this are said

(26-11-2014 04:11 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  IF a multiverse exists yes I agree. What attracts me to these concepts is that we don't know yet. I also find it interesting that both concepts evolved as an explanation to these constants. They both at this time require a "leap of faith" so to speak. I have heard said that we will never be able to test for another Universe. Obviously time and technology growth could change this, but it is interesting to me that this battle between concepts might never be resolved. IMO the fine tuner argument will be around a long time because of this.

The second anything is ascribed to faith when speaking about science it usually is a pre-cursor to equating it with the religious. If this wasn’t your intention then fine. You could just as easily said “They both at this time require further study.” No fuss, no muss no leaps of faith required.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and drop it.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
26-11-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 09:36 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  The multiverse model is praised by some people because it's coherent. It starts with a understood fact (the universe began to exist) and then posits that the creation of the universe is not necessarily unique. That the conditions that created the universe can give rise to any number of other universes.

It is then supported by a buttload of math I don't understand.

The argument for a "Fine Tuner" isn't coherent. It starts with a assumption that the the various universal constants can be something else and then posits that the constants were set in the specific way they are by some kind of "Intelegent Being." (They frequently then say that they know what that intelligent being is and what he wants us to do with our junk.)

So it takes an idea without evidence, posits a solution to the question raised by that idea and is almost exclusively put forward by people with an obvious agenda. So that's two non-sequiturs and a presupposition bias.

You're comparing apples to rocks. Not only are they dissimilar they don't serve the same purpose.

Both the multiverse and a "fine tuner" start with the assumption that various universal constants can be something else. I know a lot of people push the envelope of it though(fine tuning)...Anyways I'm not here to hold the fine tuners flag for them. I just thought this stuff was crazy interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 10:05 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
If we live in a universe that seems fine-tuned for life - well, if it was a universe which *wasn't* able to support life, we wouldn't be here to marvel at how wonderfully fine-tuned it is? See?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-11-2014, 10:12 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 09:57 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Both the multiverse and a "fine tuner" start with the assumption that various universal constants can be something else. I know a lot of people push the envelope of it though(fine tuning)...Anyways I'm not here to hold the fine tuners flag for them. I just thought this stuff was crazy interesting.

By my understanding:
Different physical constants are a potential consequence of another universe existing. It's one of their conclusions, not a premise.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: