Kathleen

A Question

  
By:  Kathleen  •  Vacations  •  one month ago  •  364 comments

A Question

What do you think existed before the universe was created?

Any thoughts?

Tags

jrBlog - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Kathleen
1  author  Kathleen    one month ago

Any thoughts about this?

Could there have been something there?

 
 
 
JBB
1.1  JBB  replied to  Kathleen @1    one month ago

I suppose the best words for it would be these. Before there was light or solid matter there must have been a limitless completely dark completely empty void. Given infinite time though two infinity small particle traveling at infinite speed through the infinite void ultimately would inevitable strick each other sparking an initial blast of infinite amounts of heat also known as The Big Bang. 

Concepts like nothingness and infinity are hard for organic creatures with finite lives and limited senses to even comprehend. Everything around us is really swimming in liquid seas of atomic matter invisible to our eyes. What we see is merely the light reflected off other masses of particles. 

That is the best I can explain it...

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.1  cjcold  replied to  JBB @1.1    one month ago

Not sure that I believe in the concept of an "empty void".

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @1.1.1    one month ago
Not sure that I believe in the concept of an "empty void".

Space itself is quite empty. But probably not absolutely empty. You might find a few atoms of hydrogen in a certain area of space.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    one month ago

And here I thought that hydrogen was pretty much ubiquitous.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @1.1.3    one month ago

When you think about it, hydrogen is the base ingredient for everything that came after.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @1.1.3    one month ago

The most abundant element in the known universe.   The first element created.   Critical to all the other elements.   The rock star of elements.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.6  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    one month ago

And as Mark Watney said, nothing has ever gone wrong with lighting hydrogen on fire.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  cjcold @1.1.6    one month ago

I love that movie.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @1.1.6    one month ago

At least, not if you want an even bigger fire, Lol

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2  Heartland American  replied to  Kathleen @1    one month ago

Yes, God.  He has always existed, never began and will never end.  He began the process of creating things long long ago.  

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.1  JBB  replied to  Heartland American @1.2    one month ago

I said nothing of a god or gods but since you brought it up, define, "God"...

I believe our individual consciousness ends when we die. Humans are biological creatures similar to dogs and apes and dolphins. There is nothing after death except an eternal nothingness. As it was before my first breath it will be again eternally and I am perfectly okay with that. I believe humans are merely the most evolved creatures, we know of, to ever emerge from the primordial soup of the third rock from the Sun. While i suspect there may be other sentient life somewhere out there I have thus far never observed any real evidence of it. I do not believe in magic or ghosts or spirits of any kind other than the searching spirit of mankind for answers. The preponderance of evidence is without a doubt against there ever having ever been any such beings as the magical mythical creatures people often referred to as, Gods"... 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.2  author  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    one month ago

After reading this, I feel like taking a huge vacation, get drunk and go on a spending spree...  lol

I would agree with you 100%, but there are a few things that I experienced over the years that made me wonder. So I am not totally committed to this yet. ( That would be another whole topic).

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.2    one month ago

In other words, before anything else existed, there sat alone a single sentient entity of unfathomably complexity and power.   Further, this entity is irreducible — it does not consist of anything — is not made of anything (i.e. no atoms or equivalent).

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2    one month ago
Yes, God.  He has always existed, never began and will never end.  He began the process of creating things long long ago.  

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.4    one month ago
That's nice. Prove it!

Can you prove that the universe materialized out of nothing?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.5    one month ago
Can you prove that the universe materialized out of nothing?

Literally nothing (as in complete void ... non-existence)?   That is impossible by definition.

The singularity is not nothing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.6    one month ago

What existed before the universe? What or how was the universe created? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.7    one month ago
What existed before the universe?

Per physics, prior to the universe was a singularity of extremely low entropy (uniform).   This is purely theoretical of course; the singularity is a place-holder for 'primordial content of the universe'.   This theory is a result of working the equations of physics (basically that means current understanding of reality) backwards to what should have been the origin.   Science does not declare this is truth, only that this is the best explanation thus far of the origin.

My answer (opinion) about existence prior to the singularity is @2.

What or how was the universe created? 

A common hypothesis (informed speculation) is that an instability at the quantum level (or below) triggered a chain reaction.   Science can explain the formation of the universe from the first 10-43 seconds (the Planck epoch) of the Big Bang onward.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.8    one month ago

So it is all speculation--just like God is for some folks.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.10  author  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.4    one month ago

That should be on your tombstone.... jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.5    one month ago
Can you prove that the universe materialized out of nothing?

I've never made any such affirmative claim. But I can ask you the same question. Just substitute "universe" with god.

What existed before the universe?

The honest answer is no one knows. It can only be speculated.

What or how was the universe created?

The universe as we know it was "created" by the Big Bang. Empirical evidence supports that.

So it is all speculation--just like God is for some folks.

Speculation might be giving it too much credit. God is just a baseless assumption, which many posit as matter of fact.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.10    one month ago

It probably will be my epitaph. Lol

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    one month ago
So it is all speculation--just like God is for some folks.

You incorrectly reduced my comment into the notion that science —regarding the origin of the universe— is speculation???   A perfect example of confirmation bias.  Reminds me of this:

The informed speculation (as I phrased it) is in the planck epoch (the first 10-43 seconds).   Everything after that is most definitely not speculation.

A sentient creator is pure speculation.  There is no evidence whatsoever that a sentient creator forged all that we see in the universe.    Possible yes, but not a shred of evidence.

So on one hand we have science that can explain how the universe evolved from the the first 10-43 seconds onward versus ancient naive stories of a sentient entity intentionally dividing light from darkness, creating cosmological bodies, etc.

No, Tex, the scientific explanations are most definitely NOT all speculation.  The religious 'God did it' explanation, however, IS entirely speculation.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.14  WallyW  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    one month ago
So it is all speculation--just like God is for some folks.

No, it's all science....and observable truth

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    one month ago

You were the one claiming it was theory, not me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.15    one month ago

A theory of science is not speculation.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    one month ago

I'd say "god did it" is neither speculation nor explanation. It's wishful thinking and/or the lazy man's way of "explaining" something they either do not or refuse to understand, or as a mental/emotional crutch because reality might be too much to bear. Or all of the above.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Heartland American @1.2    one month ago
Yes, God.

Which "God".  The Egyptians had something like 1500 different Gods.  All predate the deity from the bible / quran you call "God".

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.18    one month ago

Yeah, but they were all "fake" gods. Just fillers until the "real" god decided to show up. >sarc <

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.20  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.4    one month ago

I don’t have to.  I answered a question that was asked and I really don’t care one bit what the so called pro science consensus censorship gang thinks of it.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.21  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    one month ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.20    one month ago

You made an affirmative claim so you bear the burden of proving it. Otherwise, your claim is baseless and your answer is invalid! The face that you try to dodge the challenge of proof and become biasly defensive only proves my point and your lack of credibility!

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.20    one month ago
I really don’t care one bit what the so called pro science consensus censorship gang thinks of it.

Anti-science in 2019.  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

256

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.24  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.21    one month ago

Key word in there is "believe," as in that's all it is and nothing more. But you didn't posit your answer as a mere "belief," which doesn't objectively answer anything. You posted it as matter of factly with nothing to support it. Your beliefs certainly do not make nor are facts in themselves!

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.25  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.23    one month ago

Hard to "believe" such things occur in this day and age, with all the collected information, evidence, and access available at the click of a mouse.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.26  Heartland American  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.18    one month ago

None can predate one that has always existed and is the creator of all things.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.27  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.26    one month ago

Still waiting for you to prove that. I imagine it's quite the challenge too, since it is a logical fallacy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.26    one month ago

God has always existed is merely a claim based on nothing but imagination.

God is creator of all things is merely a claim based on nothing but imagination.

Possible, yes, but there is no evidence whatsoever supporting your bold claims of truth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.29  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.28    one month ago

And yet, some people make such bold, but unsubstantiated claims, as fact or truth, to the exclusion of any other far more rational explanation or otherwise  honest deferrence of a valid explanation. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.29    one month ago

Willfully, repeatedly, stubbornly and with an absolute refusal to learn.   It is fascinating to watch and 'thank God' this way of thinking is waning.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.31  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.30    one month ago

Willfully, repeatedly, and ad nauseum. Sometimes,  I wonder if that way of thinking really is waning. Doesn't seem like it.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.32  author  Kathleen  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.21    one month ago

Thanks for your answer HA, it sure is a subject that is interesting to a lot of people.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.32    one month ago

"What created the circumstances and things that went into the Big Bang possible?" might be a good question, too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.33    one month ago
What created the circumstances and things that went into the Big Bang possible?

Theoretical physics (which means: well-founded, formal speculation) has offered a number of potential possibilities such as the Multiverse hypothesis or the Big Crunch, but there is insufficient information to say anything definitive.

Nobody knows for sure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.34    one month ago

That sounds reasonable--no one can know for sure.

All we can really do is surmise and guess.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.35    one month ago

There is a profound difference between the hypotheses and models of theoretical physics and guessing.

Guessing is like:  'An all-powerful sentient entity did it'.    That is what ancient men did because they did not have the knowledge and tools to do any better.

Theoretical physics goes beyond the current understanding of physics but holds true to what is known.   The complex mathematical models must ultimately make sense given known physics.   It is well-founded, formal speculation;  not guesswork.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.36    one month ago

Without firm evidence, speculation IS guessing, no matter how sophisticated or educated the guess is.

I believe that what the seeder really wanted to know is where did anything--anything at all, no matter how big or small, gas, liquid or solid, come from? 

The Big Bang Theory describes what some guess occurred to form the universe as we know it. I want to know what created the circumstances and things that even made the Big Bang Theory possible.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.37    one month ago
Without firm evidence, speculation IS guessing, no matter how sophisticated or educated the guess is.

So when Einstein put forth Special Relativity he was just guessing, eh?   There was no experimental evidence that backed up his theoretical work.   His work was based upon and extrapolated from known physics.    It was well-founded, formal speculation.   Not guesswork.

I believe that what the seeder really wanted to know is where did anything--anything at all, no matter how big or small, gas, liquid or solid, come from? 

Nobody seems to have misunderstood Kathleen's question so why do you feel compelled to rephrase it?

The Big Bang Theory describes what some guess occurred to form the universe as we know it.

Actually it does not do that.   It explains what took place starting at the first 10-43 seconds and beyond.   This is not a guess, nor is it speculation.   The well-founded speculation I mentioned applies only to what took place in the Planck Epoch (prior to the first 10-43 seconds).  What took place during the Planck epoch is unknown but our collective understanding of physics extrapolated takes us to a singularity.   This is like reversing time using what we know of physics and seeing the cosmos get smaller and smaller.   Physics suggests that this process continues to a point of 'infinite' density and science calls this hypothetical starting point a singularity.    Nothing even remotely close to guesswork (as one would use that term in the vernacular) is going on.

I want to know what created the circumstances and things that even made the Big Bang Theory possible.

So does everyone else.   I guarantee that you will never know this or anything else in this subject matter if your instinct is to cavalierly cry 'guesswork' rather than objectively and seriously try to understand the material.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.38    one month ago

Please shove your condescension into the appropriate orifice.

I should have known better than to try with you again.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.39    one month ago

The key is to be correct.   When someone makes a comment that is flat out wrong like your comparison of theoretical physics to guesswork, you should not be surprised (after explaining the difference several times) to get the suggestion that it would be very advisable to learn something about this subject matter.

Take it as condescension if you wish; I recommend you instead take it to heart.

Since you are yet again running from a challenge, I will point out that Einstein's Special Relativity was purely theoretical but based on current physics of the time.   He extrapolated beyond what was known using thought experiments — using his mind to imagine (simulate) what must be true.   Turns out, the guy was a genius and with the power of his mind he discovered fundamentals of reality that corrected Newton (and beyond) and his work remains valid even today.

So, no, theoretical physics is not guesswork and anyone who repeatedly argues that it is guesswork is wrong and needs to learn about the subject matter.   

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.41  author  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.39    one month ago

Texan,  be polite please. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.43  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.15    one month ago
You were the one claiming it was theory, not me.

Please learn what a scientific theory is. There's no excuse after all this time [deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.45  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @1.2.43    one month ago

Exactly!   What value comes from feigning obtuseness?

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.46  author  Kathleen  replied to  katrix @1.2.43    one month ago

How about ( pretend not to know ) : )

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.47  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.46    one month ago
pretend not to know

pretend to not know = feigned obtuseness

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.48  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @1.2    one month ago

A Supreme Being would be one explanation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.49  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    one month ago
Possible yes

Yup, that's one. "The scientific" explanations are another, no more or no less valid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.50  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.48    one month ago

Powerful alien entities which exist in 5 dimensions who create 4 dimensional universes would be one explanation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.51  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.49    one month ago

The difference between science-based extrapolations from t=10-43 seconds to t=0 seconds and 'God did it' is that all of modern physics is consistent with the science based extrapolation (i.e. the extrapolation is what the equations suggest) and nothing is behind the 'God did it'.

It is possible that the Big Bang is the work of a sentient creator;  there just is nothing (thus far) that suggests that would (or should) be the case.   Worse, it introduces another mystery:  the origin and nature of the sentient creator.   It explains one problem by introducing an even more complex problem.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.52  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.50    one month ago

Um-hum. A possibility

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.53  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.52    one month ago

Lots of possibilities (and thus good ideas for science fiction stories) if we set aside all knowledge and just speculate on what could be.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.54  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.51    one month ago
The difference between science-based extrapolations from t=10-43 seconds to t=0 seconds and 'God did it' is that all of modern physics is consistent with the science based extrapolation (i.e. the extrapolation is what the equations suggest) and nothing is behind the 'God did it'.

Please don't do this to yourself. You and I have similar beliefs, however the origins of the universe can't be explained one way or the other. What one person believes is equal to what another believes on this huge unknown. Secularists go out of their way to discredit whatever the religious have to say. Let's not go there.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.55  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.47    one month ago

I was trying to say it in a nicer way... : )

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.56  author  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.54    one month ago

There is so many possibilities.  I even thought of multi universes or even “ the other side”. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.57  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.54    one month ago
Please don't do this to yourself.

Do what to myself?

... however the origins of the universe can't be explained one way or the other.

The origin is not known.   However the explanations vary considerably in veracity and supporting facts.

What one person believes is equal to what another believes on this huge unknown. 

I disagree.   There is no comparison to someone believing, for example, that the universe came to be according to Hesiod's Theogony (a primordial void from which emerged the gods who then created everything) versus the Big Bang.   The former is entirely man-made mythology based on pure imagination whereas the latter is a conclusion drawn by following the evidence to where it leads based on modern-day understanding of reality (physics).

Secularists go out of their way to discredit whatever the religious have to say. 

When people claim to know things (e.g. the starting comment for this thread):

HA @1.2Yes, God.  He has always existed, never began and will never end.  He began the process of creating things long long ago.  

They invite challenge.   Religious views do not get a free pass.   Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, but they are not free to make claims of truth and to then go unchallenged simply because those claims stem from their religion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.58  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.56    one month ago

There are so many possibilities. We seem awfully small when you think about it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.59  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.57    one month ago
Do what to myself?

Lend yourself to an argument too often made here.

The former is entirely man-made mythology based on pure imagination whereas the latter is a conclusion drawn by following the evidence to where it leads based on modern-day understanding of reality (physics).

You mean theory

They invite challenge.   Religious views do not get a free pass.   Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, but they are not free to make claims of truth and to then go unchallenged simply because those claims stem from their religion.

Faith is a belief without proof. When there is proof everyone climbs on board. The Founders of this nation believed that human equality & rights were natural and preceded government. If you are consistent, you would have to disagree with that as well. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.60  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.59    one month ago
Lend yourself to an argument too often made here.

Which argument?

You mean theory

Yes, scientific theory - a falsifiable, predictive explanation for observed behavior stated in terms of known physics and corroborated by quality evidence.   Not 'theory' in a colloquial sense.

Faith is a belief without proof.

Or belief without evidence.

The Founders of this nation believed that human equality & rights were natural and preceded government. If you are consistent, you would have to disagree with that as well. 

Why?   You describe people who held a belief which they pursued.   People do that all the time.  We believed we could put a man on the moon and pursued it.   The difference I noted is the claim of truth.   'I believe God did it' is entirely different from 'God did it'.   Consider what Ken Ham, et. al. are pushing to the next generation.   They are trying to bring them up thinking that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted.

Ham, et. al. are free to their beliefs but when they start claiming truth (and, worse, pushing this crap on the next generation) then their religious views do not give them a free pass.  They will be challenged (and should be challenged).

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.61  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.59    one month ago

Also, note that even in this article you can observe the effects of religious indoctrination.   Rather than learn about reality as discovered through science, religious views often put up barriers.   Many religious people simply stop at a point where science conflicts too much with their beliefs.   So instead of trying to understand the amazing work in cosmology (in particular the collective work that falls under the label 'Big Bang') they reject all of the science as 'guesswork'.   To me that kind of thinking is counter-productive to society.   It is far better, IMO, for people to learn and expand our understanding rather than shut this process down due to religious conflicts.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.62  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.48    one month ago

An explanation which has zero supporting evidence and which really doesn't explain anything, but rather fails to explain.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.63  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.60    one month ago
Consider what Ken Ham, et. al. are pushing to the next generation.   They are trying to bring them up thinking that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted.

I'm never on the side of those who deny proven facts. I do believe that that religious people have their right to believe in whatever they want, just as secularist have the right to believe in government. When we discuss the origins of the universe, there are no wrong beliefs.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.64  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.61    one month ago

I don't think they do that at all. I think they simply believe it was all part of one great plan. If that's the way they look at it even evolution could be acepted as part of that plan.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.65  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.63    one month ago

When we discuss the origin of the universe, we should rely on evidence,  what is known, and science.  Not mere belief. Belief does not equal fact.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.66  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.62    one month ago

And your explanation of the origins of the universe?   Don't forget - I want the supporting evidence!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.67  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.65    one month ago
we should rely on evidence

Please give it to us....We are waiting with baited breathe!

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.68  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.66    one month ago

I have no explanation to offer. Therefore the origin of the universe is unknown.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.69  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.68    one month ago
I have no explanation to offer. Therefore the origin of the universe is unknown.

Can everyone see that?

There it is!  All opinions are now equally valid!

Thank you Gordy. It has been a pleasure.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.70  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.63    one month ago
I do believe that that religious people have their right to believe in whatever they want

I stipulated that.

... just as secularist have the right to believe in government

???

When we discuss the origins of the universe, there are no wrong beliefs.

But there are wrong 'truths'.   That is the key difference.   Science offers an extrapolation of what likely is going on in the Planck epoch but notes that it is pure extrapolation because the known laws of physics do not seem to apply (the mathematics results in infinities).   So science admits:  'we do not know' but states 'reversing time per physics suggests that the origin is a singularity'.

In contrast, we have the thread creator declare (like so many others) this as truth :

HA @ 1.2 Yes, God.  He has always existed, never began and will never end.  He began the process of creating things long long ago.  

And if asked, this declaration would be followed by categorical rejection of the 'pro-science consensus'.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.71  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.69    one month ago
There it is!  All opinions are now equally valid!

LOL, I suspect Gordy will not agree with your interpretation of his words.

Nobody knows (certainty) the origin of the universe.   That does not mean all opinions on this matter are equally valid.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.72  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.69    one month ago

The difference is, I didn't offer an opinion. I stated a simple fact. Nor do I care to "guess" without some empirical or logical basis to go on.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.73  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.71    one month ago

You are, as usual, correct in your assessment TiG.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.2.74  SteevieGee  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.4    one month ago
That's nice. Prove it!

I'd be impressed if he could just come up with one piece of verifiable evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.75  Gordy327  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2.74    one month ago

As would i. I've challenged him for evidence before. No surprise he's never delivered but only ignored or deflected from answering.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.76  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.26    4 weeks ago

So which of the 1500 Egyptian gods is the god in the bible?  

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.77  author  Kathleen  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.76    4 weeks ago

Sure makes you pause.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.78  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.77    4 weeks ago
Sure makes you pause.

That was the Hebrews' great contribution: the One God.

Until then, there was a "god" - a spirit - in just about everything. Every tree, every stream, the wind, the rain... everything. They were fickle gods, which explained why the weather was so changeable, why stream sometimes overflowed, why lightning struck here rather than there... and so on.

People gave offerings to these god/spirits to propitiate them. They studied the entrails of... various beasts... to learn these spirit/gods' intentions.

The Hebrews' One God reduced the spirit/gods to nothing. Natural phenomena. not understood, but not divine.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.79  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.78    4 weeks ago
That was the Hebrews' great contribution: the One God.
Until then, there was a "god" - a spirit - in just about everything. Every tree, every stream, the wind, the rain... everything. They were fickle gods, which explained why the weather was so changeable, why stream sometimes overflowed, why lightning struck here rather than there... and so on.

Not really.

From the perspective of the middle east the concept of monotheism began more than 2,000 years earlier than the conquering of the land of Caanan by the Hebrews.

Of course Torah timelines cover back to the garden of Eden.

Th easiest reference to find this morning is from the University of California Riverside in one of my favorite discussions, the Sea People which led to the collapse of the classic civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean. 

https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/seapeopl.htm

Just past half way down this picks up - special attention to highlights in blue:

EGYPT’S TEMPORARY RETURN TO THE MOTHER GODDESS RELIGION

 

          In Egypt, the Pharaohs had been very much in control and to build such a revolt was out of the question. Those people who still practiced the Goddess religion were too oppressed to assist, however, even here change had come some centuries earlier from a most unexpected side, from the highest possible level of the Pharaoh himself. The new  Pharaoh Akhenaten  had married a most remarkable woman by the name of  Nefertiti  who was to promote a world-shaking revolution. Nefertiti is known as the beautiful wife of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who was Amenhotep III's son. During the reigns of Amenhotep III and his father Thutmose IV, the Egyptian empire's military might was at its zenith, extending south deep into Nubia and east into Asia. Akhenaten became pharaoh ca 1353 bce. and shortly after he assumed the throne it became clear that he and his wife Nefertiti were not interested in the huge and confusing pantheon of gods and goddesses of the male dominated Egyptian religion. Male domination had taken root and altered the ancient Goddess based religion of Egypt. This change had degraded the position of the goddesses and placed the gods in commanding positions. In an astonishing effort of evangelical renewal, Nefertiti and Akhenaten decided to go back to the ancient monotheistic Goddess religion of their early ancestors. This probably meant that  Nefertiti  became the Chief Priestess and Akhenaten the prince. Her name tells us what she set out to do; it breaks down into (the f equals b):

 

.ne - efe - er. - .ti - iti 
ane - ebe - era - ati - iti 
añendu - ebertar - eraberritu - atikitasun - itiki/idiki  
to curse - patriarchy - to reform - faithfulness - to discover 
Reform the cursed patriarchy and discover faithfulness.

 

          That is exactly what she and her husband set out to do. Akhenaten came from a long line of strong rulers, so why did he break with the established male domination tradition? The answer may be that he married a headstrong woman, who had been trained as a priestess, but where she came from or where she trained is not clear. Her looks were different from the Egyptian women, with her very long and elegant neck and fine features. She was more the type of the blond people of Cyrenaica, on Egypt's northwestern border, known as the Shardana, all of whom still adhered to the Goddess religion. Whoever she may have been, it is a fact that  Akhenaten  took the courageous step to go back to the Goddess religion of old Egypt. His name tells of his faith; it breaks down into:

 

ake - ena - ate - en.  
Akela - -ena - aterpe - enetan 
Goddess - superlative/great - refuge - always 
The Great Goddess, my refuge always.

 

          Akhenaten was not so much a religious reformer as an ultra conservative returning to the days of the Queen of Heaven. In the fifth year of his reign, he shocked the Egyptian priesthood by forbidding the worship of the entire Egyptian pantheon and ordered the closure of the Amen temples in the country. He also changed his name from Amenhotep IV to Akhenaten. Only one of the former gods survived his purge; it was Apis, the sacred bull who had been worshiped as the "living sun-god Ra" in Heliopolis. He was returned to his original position as the universal symbol of male fertility. The formerly powerful and rich priests, afraid of losing their exalted and respected positions, were horrified but the people may have quietly applauded the pharaoh’s courageous action. On the wall of one of his new temples at Thebes Akhenaten listed the failings and folly of the old deities and tried to convince the people to go back to the caring Goddess of the heavens and of the living earth. The priesthood resisted but the pharaoh was the god-king, he had to be obeyed and they did, biding their time.

 

 Don't get lost in what Akhenaten and Nefertiti did. The important thing is the reference to the ancient (to them) monotheistic religion of the early/pre Dynastic ancestors.

This is just 1 example. Poly and mono theism have come and gone and come and gone again over time.

History is always interesting.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.80  author  Kathleen  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.78    4 weeks ago

There was always some kind of explanation of why things happened on the planet. Whether it was a god or Mother Nature.  It was always interesting to see what people worshiped and why.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.81  author  Kathleen  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.79    4 weeks ago

That is so true, history is very interesting and there are some things that I wished never happened and things I am glad that happened.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.82  dave-2693993  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.80    4 weeks ago

One of my favorite historians, Bettany Hughes, did a multi part series of the mainly eastern Mediterranean cultures, which touched on the possible beginning of religion with shamans trying to explain natural phenomena. She didn't go deep into it, but if paying attention one could get a sense of here implied coverage.

She always gives a very interesting lecture. After simply reading different histories word by word and imagining how things were from my own imagination, it was extremely pleasing to hear and see her lectures.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.83  dave-2693993  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.81    4 weeks ago

History contains so much information that we "modern smart people" tend to ignore and repeat. Humans have a very short historical memory, it seems.

In fact, we as a nation are doing it again with regards to pure democracy.

The history of ancient Athens spells out the down side of pure democracy pretty clearly.

No one can convince me, we are smarter than those people. We only have more accumulated knowledge and technology.

We still suffer the same human limits and weaknesses...maybe even more so these days.?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.84  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.83    4 weeks ago
The history of ancient Athens spells out the down side of pure democracy pretty clearly.

In Athens, the vote was limited to a sliver of the population.

If you're going to pontificate about a phantasmagorical "pure democracy" that has never existed, anywhere in the history of the world.. at least you should learn the facts about the examples that you give.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.85  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.84    4 weeks ago
In Athens, the vote was limited to a sliver of the population. If you're going to pontificate about a phantasmagorical "pure democracy" that has never existed, anywhere in the history of the world.. at least you should learn the facts about the examples that you give.

The tendency to jump on assumptions, yet again, never helps your argument.

...and what would have changed if every one could vote?

Hey, I have an idea, maybe we should open up voting to everyone within our borders? Then again, maybe not.

Unless we go totally nuts, there will always be limitations on who can and who can not vote.

The popular term for hairsplitters seems to be "direct democracy". Does that make you happy? For the voting population it was pure democracy.

It failed, miserably and was democracy in practice yet opened the door to representative forms of government, one of which we have here in our country.

Knock your sock off:

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-greece/ancient-greece-democracy

https://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/

https://www.mrdowling.com/701-athens.html

Now, which nation is it where absolutely everyone within the borders votes?

Lines were drawn then, lines are drawn today. Now which phantasmagorical thing are you imagining?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.86  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.85    4 weeks ago

Between ten and twenty percent of the population could vote in ancient Athens. A very limited democracy...

Oh, and... this was just the tag-end of the Bronze Age...

Do really feel comfortable drawing conclusions from such a different country?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.87  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.86    4 weeks ago
Between ten and twenty percent of the population could vote in ancient Athens. A very limited democracy...

Yes, and?

How does the percentage of participants change the form of government?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.88  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.87    4 weeks ago
Yes, and?

You seemed to consider ancient Athens significant for modern America. I wondered if you had knew anything about Athens.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.89  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.88    4 weeks ago

If you do not know I am a student of history by now, that is on you.

Now you seem to infer that example of ancient history has no bearing on human behavior today in modern America.

Why?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.90  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.86    4 weeks ago
Do really feel comfortable drawing conclusions from such a different country?

Absolutely.

Human behaviour is human behaviour.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.91  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.90    4 weeks ago

You're flailing.

If you want to talk seriously, that's fine... but my impression is that you want to score points. I'm not interested in that.

Let's try to start over:

Athens is an interesting case because it was the first attempt to find a better system than monarchy. But there are few lessons to be learned from such a different society.
 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.92  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.91    4 weeks ago
You're flailing.

Are you a middle schooler? Seriously?

As usual, you can not give a direct answer to a direct question relative to  your statement and question, so you come up with nonsense.

Additionally,the use of posing common understanding, such as the problems with pure democracy, as a golden nugget of knowledge, is more nonsense.

Grow up. Intellectual snob my ass.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.93  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.92    4 weeks ago

Yup. Flailing.

Badly.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.94  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.93    4 weeks ago
History contains so much information that we "modern smart people" tend to ignore and repeat. Humans have a very short historical memory, it seems.

In fact, we as a nation are doing it again with regards to pure democracy.

The history of ancient Athens spells out the down side of pure democracy pretty clearly.

No one can convince me, we are smarter than those people. We only have more accumulated knowledge and technology.

We still suffer the same human limits and weaknesses...maybe even more so these days.?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.95  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.94    4 weeks ago

Do you imagine that repetition somehow confers substance?

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.96  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.48    4 weeks ago

The explanation....

More than a hundred different parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist. This table includes just a partial list. A more complete list with scientific literature citations is available at reasons.org/finetuning .

1. strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

2. weak nuclear force constant

if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

3. gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly

if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy-element production

4. electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding; inadequate quantities of either carbon or oxygen

5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: no stars of less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities

if smaller: no stars of more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

6. ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible

7. ratio of numbers of protons to electrons

if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

8. expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation

9. entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

10. baryon or nucleon density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming

11. velocity of light

if faster: stars would be too luminous

if slower: stars would not be luminous enough

12. age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13. initial uniformity of cosmic radiation

if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed

if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14. fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses

if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields

if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

15. average distance between galaxies

if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span

if smaller: the Sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed

16. average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

17. decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

18. 12 Carbon ( 12 C) to 16 Oxygen ( 16 O) energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon

19. ground state energy level for 4 Helium ( 4 He)

if higher: insufficient carbon and oxygen

If lower: insufficient carbon and oxygen

20. decay rate of 8 Beryllium ( 8 Be)

if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton

if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life

if smaller: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes

22. initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons

if greater: too much radiation for planets to form

if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

23. polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life’s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

24. supernova explosions

if too far away: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet; planet formation would be disrupted

if too frequent : life on the planet would be exterminated

if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

25. white dwarf binaries

if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed

if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production

if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet

26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter

if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form

if smaller: galaxies would not form

27. galaxy clusters

if too dense: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt star and planet orbits; too much radiation

if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas into galaxies to sustain star formation for a long enough time

28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe

if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible

if smaller: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible

29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe

if larger: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable

if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable

30. mass values for the active neutrinos

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form

31. big bang ripples

if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe expands too rapidly

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense; black holes would dominate; universe collapses too quickly

32. total mass density

if larger: universe would expand too slowly, resulting in unstable orbits and too much radiation; random velocities between galaxies and galaxy clusters would be too large

if smaller: universe would expand too quickly for solar-type stars to form

33. dark energy density

if larger: universe would expand too quickly for solar-type stars to form

if smaller: universe would expand too slowly, resulting in unstable orbits and too much radiation

34. size of the relativistic dilation factor

if larger: certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

35. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

if larger: certain life-essential elements would be unstable; certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be inadequate; certain life-essential elements would be unstable; certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly

36. density of neutrinos

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense; supernova eruptions would be too violent

if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form; inadequate supernova eruptions resulting in too few heavy elements dispersed into the interstellar medium

37. ratio of proton to electron charge

if larger: inadequate chemical bonding

if smaller: inadequate chemical bonding

38. ratio of cosmic mass density to dark energy density

if larger: galaxies, stars, and planets needed for life would form at the wrong time or the wrong location or both

if smaller: galaxies, stars, and planets needed for life would form at the wrong time or the wrong location or both

39. initial homogeneity of the universe

if greater: no galaxies or stars form

if lesser: black holes form before any stars form; no nuclear-burning stars

40. number of neutrino species

if less than 3: big bang fuses insufficient helium from hydrogen, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

if more than 4: big bang fuses too much helium from hydrogen, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

41. ratio of ordinary matter to exotic matter

if larger: rotation curves of spiral galaxies would not be flat enough; galaxy clusters would not be in virial equilibrium

if smaller: insufficient star formation

42. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history

if larger: galaxy cluster suitable for advanced life will never form

if smaller: galaxy cluster suitable for advanced life will never form

43. epoch for peak of hypernova eruptions events

if earlier: density of heavy elements will be too high at best epoch for life

if later: density of heavy elements will be too low at best epoch for life

44. epoch for peak of supernova eruptions events

if earlier: density of heavy elements will be too high at best epoch for life

if later: density of heavy elements will be too low at best epoch for life

45. number of different kinds of supernovae

if lower: some of the elements essential for life will be missing

46. number of supernova eruption events

if too many: too much heavy element production for life to exist

if too few: inadequate production of heavy elements for life to exist

47. decay rate of an isolated neutron

if faster: big bang would fuse too little hydrogen into helium, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

if slower: big bang would fuse too much hydrogen into helium, resulting in inadequate life-essential elements

48. density of metal-free population III stars in early universe

if higher: cosmic metallicity at optimal time for life will be too high; too much gas will be blown out of primordial galaxies

if lower: cosmic metallicity at optimal time for life will be too low; too little gas will be blown out of primordial galaxies

49. average mass of metal-free population III stars

if larger: these stars will not scatter any of their heavy elements into interstellar space

if smaller: these stars will scatter an insufficient quantity of heavy elements into interstellar space

50. water’s heat of vaporization

if larger: liquid water would evaporate too slowly

if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too rapidly

51. hypernova eruptions

if too many: relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary systems

if too few: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets

if too soon: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets

if too late: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary systems

52. H 3 + production amount

if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life

if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form

53. density of quasars

if larger: too much cosmic dust forms; too many stars form too late, disrupting the formation of a solar-type star at right time and right conditions for life

if smaller: insufficient production and ejection of cosmic dust into the intergalactic medium; ongoing star formation impeded; deadly radiation unblocked

54. density of giant galaxies in the early universe

if larger: too large a quantity of metals ejected into the intergalactic medium, providing future stars with too high of a metallicity for a life-support planet at the right time in cosmic history

if smaller: insufficient metals ejected into the intergalactic medium, depriving future generations of stars of the metal abundances necessary for a life-support planet at the right time in cosmic history

55. masses of stars that become hypernovae

if too massive: all the metals produced by the hypernova eruptions collapse into black holes resulting from the eruptions, leaving none of the metals available for future generations of stars

if not massive enough: insufficient metals are ejected into the interstellar medium for future star generations to make stars and planets suitable for the support of life

56. density of gamma-ray burst events

if larger: frequency and intensity of mass extinction events will be too high

if smaller: not enough production of copper, scandium, titanium, and zinc

57. intensity of primordial cosmic superwinds

if too low: inadequate star formation late in cosmic history

if too great: inadequate star formation early in cosmic history

58. smoking quasars

if too many: early star formation will be too vigorous, resulting in too few stars and planets being able to form late in cosmic history

if too few: inadequate primordial dust production for stimulating future star formation

59. level of supersonic turbulence in the infant universe

if too low: first stars will be the wrong type and quantity to produce the necessary mix of elements, gas, and dust so that a future star and planetary system capable of supporting life will appear at the right time in cosmic history

if too high: first stars will be the wrong type and quantity to produce the necessary mix of elements, gas, and dust so that a future star and planetary system capable of supporting life will appear at the right time in cosmic history

60. rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three helium nuclei to make one carbon nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars

if too high: stars would manufacture too much carbon and other heavy elements; stars may be too bright

if too low: stars would not manufacture enough carbon and other heavy elements to make advanced life possible before cosmic conditions would rule out the possibility of advanced life; stars may be too dim

From The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. © 2018 by Reasons to Believe, fourth edition. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission of Reasons to Believe, reasons.org . https://world.wng.org/content/a_fine_tuned_universe

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.97  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.95    4 weeks ago

Not at all.

Unfortunately, you have danced around in circles, avoiding direct questions and in reality the original statement stands.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.98  Bob Nelson  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.96    4 weeks ago

It's silly to copy / paste so massively. Just supply a summary and a link.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.99  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.97    4 weeks ago
Do you imagine that repetition somehow confers substance?
 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.100  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.96    4 weeks ago

That is nothing more than a long winded way of making the assumption "god did it" or a means of providing an emotionally satisfying explanation rather than a rational or factual one. Not to mention it comes from a religiously biased source. None of that has any logical validity until you can first prove there's a god. Another fail on your part!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.101  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.99    4 weeks ago

Let's see you answer those direct questions. 

Can you do it?

Can you back up your claims?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.102  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.96    4 weeks ago

Well I congratulate you in steering clear of Ken Ham this time and going to an actual scientist.   Dr. Hugh Ross knows his science and, unlike the general YEC bunch, does not lie and distort science to try to preserve his religious beliefs.

The key thing to understand in the argument for fine tuning is that the particular state of our universe is as likely as any other state.   We know that if these factors vary, a different universe would result or, indeed, no universe at all.   A minor variation can be the difference between interesting cosmological bodies (and biological bodies) and a homogeneous blob of gas.

So yes our particular universe is extremely unlikely.   But each other possible universe is also extremely unlikely.   The more possible manifestations of a set of factors the less likely is each manifestation.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.103  author  Kathleen  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.2.101    4 weeks ago

You mean to tell me that I started all this by saying ‘ Sure makes you pause?’  Lol!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.2.104  dave-2693993  replied to  Kathleen @1.2.103    4 weeks ago

LOL

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.105  Heartland American  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.98    4 weeks ago

It’s there too

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.106  Bob Nelson  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.105    4 weeks ago
It’s there too

My point exactly.

You didn't have to add inches of text that no one will read... and that you probably have never read yourself.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.107  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.102    3 weeks ago
The key thing to understand in the argument for fine tuning is that the particular state of our universe is as likely as any other state.   We know that if these factors vary, a different universe would result or, indeed, no universe at all.   A minor variation can be the difference between interesting cosmological bodies (and biological bodies) and a homogeneous blob of gas. So yes our particular universe is extremely unlikely.   But each other possible universe is also extremely unlikely.   The more possible manifestations of a set of factors the less likely is each manifestation.

This represents the key problem with your argument in your Fine Tuning Argument article and is an example of what I was talking about. This is just as much an assumption as "God did it" because you know not one thing in this as fact. It's all assumptions.

You say the key thing to understand about the fine tuning argument is that the particular state of our universe is as likely as any other state. How do you know that? Is that not an assumption? You are trying to dismiss fine tuning with an assumption, not a fact. The only way you could present it as a fact is if you had a statistically large enough sampling of existing universes with which to support your claim. Most of what you use is like this. Assumptions. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.108  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.107    3 weeks ago
This is just as much an assumption as "God did it" because you know not one thing in this as fact. It's all assumptions.

I stated that if we enumerate the possible universes, without making assumptions, each universe has the same probability as the other.   And that is correct based on probability 101.   By the same reasoning, if we enumerate all possible 5-card hands, each one has exactly the same probability of being dealt.   

Either you understand this or you do not.   If you do not understand what I just wrote then that explains in part why we are still discussing this.


Now, assuming you understand what I wrote (and I see no reason why you would not understand that), the probability of our particular universe existing is very, very small as is the probability of any other universe.   The reason for the identical probabilities is because I have not made any assumptions whatsoever.   All we have is an enumeration of all possible universes.   If there is no additional information (or no additional assumptions) then there is absolutely nothing to cause the probabilities to be unequal.

Now, add in your assumption that the existence of our universe was directed by a sentient entity (that you also assume exists and that is now a whole other can of worms).  Well, that changes everything.  If this entity wanted a particular outcome then the probability of that outcome becomes 1.0 and the probability of all other outcomes is now 0.0.

You say the key thing to understand about the fine tuning argument is that the particular state of our universe is as likely as any other state. How do you know that? 

I know that based on the model I presented: enumeration with no assumptions.   If you make NO assumptions then each universe is by default at the same probability.  Just like with no assumptions each card hand has the same probability.   You have to ADD assumptions to make the probabilities different.   In your case, you add the assumption of a sentient entity.   That is like adding the assumption of an unfair dealer in the card analogy.   

No assumptions = equal probabilities by default.

The curious thing about this is that you insist I am making assumption and for some reason you cannot recognize that you are the one adding in assumptions.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.109  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.108    3 weeks ago
I stated that if we enumerate the possible universes, without making assumptions, each universe has the same probability as the other.

What possible universes????????????? How do you know other universes are possible????????? Your argument is ASSUMING other universes are possible. Can you not see that? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.110  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.109    3 weeks ago

This all started with the fine-tuning argument which states that our universe is defined by a set of factors each with a very specific value.   The argument states that the probability of our particular universe occurring by pure chance is very tiny; it thus implicitly presumes the other universes are possible otherwise the argument makes no sense whatsoever.   Right?

So, given that model, we can enumerate the possibilities and sans any assumptions each one would have the same probability.   Equal probability is what you get by default before you add in assumptions.

It is an assumption on your part to suggest these universes are impossible.   Where does that assumption come from?   Assuming the universes are impossible is a new assumption on the fine-tuning argument.

I recommend:

  1. Do not assume the existence of a sentient entity.
  2. Do not assume a sentient entity is working the dials.
  3. Do not assume there is some reason why the enumeration of universes is impossible.
  4. Do not assume anything beyond what the fine-tuning model offers.

If you do the above, the model of the fine-tuning argument simply has our universe as one of many other possibilities.   Nothing else.  That is it.   No assumptions whatsoever.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.111  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.110    3 weeks ago
Right?

No, not right. Almost exactly wrong. 

The argument states that the probability of our particular universe occurring by pure chance is very tiny; it thus implicitly presumes the other universes are possible otherwise the argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Then you don't understand the argument. The argument does the opposite of presume other universes are possible. It is saying that if there are an infinite possible number of universes are possible, the probability approaches zero that ours would be the one to exist. Therefore, the most likely answer is design. It is saying that this universe's existence argues against chance. 

Put another way, it doesn't presume other universes are possible. What it does is take the notion that other universes are possible and are simply randomly generated and gives a reason as to why that is unlikely. It argues against that notion. It doesn't presume it. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.112  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.110    3 weeks ago
It is an assumption on your part to suggest these universes are impossible.   Where does that assumption come from?   Assuming the universes are impossible is a new assumption on the fine-tuning argument.

Where, either here or in your Fine Tuning Argument article, have I ever said other universe are impossible? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.113  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.111    3 weeks ago
It is saying that if there are an infinite possible number of universes are possible, the probability approaches zero that ours would be the one to exist. Therefore, the most likely answer is design. 

Read what you just wrote.   You just noted that the fine-tuning argument does not preclude (in its premises Drakk) the possibility that these other universes could exist.   Do you not recognize that this is what I have been saying?

It is saying that this universe's existence argues against chance. 

That is the conclusion of the fine-tuning argument.   Conclusion vs. premises.   

Put another way, it doesn't presume other universes are possible.

If the fine-tuning argument were to preclude the possibility of the other universes existing in its premises then its conclusion would be a tautology.    Do you recognize that?

What it does is take the notion that other universes are possible and are simply randomly generated and gives a reason as to why that is unlikely.

So now, here again , you state what I have been stating.   The premises of the fine-tuning argument do not preclude the possibility that these universe are possible.  

It argues against that notion. It doesn't presume it. 

It concludes unlikely.   It necessarily allows for the possible existence in order to conclude unlikely.

Where, either here or in your Fine Tuning Argument article, have I ever said other universe are impossible

Good grief man, read this:  

Drakk @1.2.109What possible universes????????????? How do you know other universes are possible????????? Your argument is ASSUMING other universes are possible. Can you not see that? 

You asked me what possible universes?  Tons of question marks as if possible existence of these universes is absurd to even consider in the argument.  You then ask how I know these universes are possible.  Again question marks indicating that you hold their possible existence to be impossible.   My jaw is on the floor.

Note my answer is that the possible universes, the possibility of the possible universes comes from the fine-tuning argument.   The argument (the stuff before the conclusion) most certainly considers the possibility of these other universes existing.   It concludes that ours won not from mere chance but from a sentient designer.   In order to do that, it necessarily must consider these other universes.   Again, if the argument precluded the possibility of these other universes existing upfront the argument would be a tautology.   

When you question the possibility of these other universes existing what on Earth do you expect me to think?   Am I to interpret that as you think they have a probability of existence (as I have noted) or that they have no probability of existence?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.114  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.113    3 weeks ago
Read what you just wrote. You just noted that the fine-tuning argument does not preclude (in its premises Drakk) the possibility that these other universes could exist. Do you not recognize that this is what I have been saying?

First, let's be clear on just what we're calling an argument. Fine tuning is a statement. It is not an argument. It's basically, the laws and properties of the universe appear to be finely tuned for the support of life and should any of those laws because if those properties were different, life as we know it would not exist. The argument is about the validity of that statement or what the explanation for the universe's appearance might be.

So, Fine Tuning doesn't address the possibility of other universes at all. The argument surrounding it does. One of those explanations is your view of the universe, or actually, the nature of existence. Generally, if there are an infinite number of possible universes then one like this is bound to show up sooner or later. That would certainly explain why we see a universe like this one that seems fine tuned for life. Another explanation, of course, is that it was designed. 

Thing is, neither position is provable at this point, but you argue as if one of them is already a given. Look again at the statement you made that I replied to:

The key thing to understand in the argument for fine tuning is that the particular state of our universe is as likely as any other state. We know that if these factors vary, a different universe would result or, indeed, no universe at all. A minor variation can be the difference between interesting cosmological bodies (and biological bodies) and a homogeneous blob of gas. So yes our particular universe is extremely unlikely. But each other possible universe is also extremely unlikely. The more possible manifestations of a set of factors the less likely is each manifestation.

I asked you how do you know that? In order to say "it is as likely as any other state," you have to base it off of something. Either you've done something like take a survey of a statistically significant number of universes with which to back up your claim or you are necessarily assuming something you take to be likely. I'm pretty sure which it is. 

Note my answer is that the possible universes, the possibility of the possible universes comes from the fine-tuning argument.

As I have just explained, no, it doesn't. It comes from your explanation as to why this universe appears fine tuned. To illustrate the other side of this same coin...

The fine tuned statement doesn't actually argue for a designer. It simply states that it appears fine tuned for life. Of course, fine tuned implies a tuner, but it only says "it appears fine tuned", not that it was. The explanation, which is the other side of the coin, is that it appears that way because there is indeed a designer. This explanation doesn't address any universe other than the one known to exist. This is because the fine tuning statement doesn't address multiple universes. 

The problem is, to me, that you don't appear to realize much of the above. You think you've discredited the Fine Tuning argument when Fine Tuning is an observation and not an argument. I doubt there are many who would disagree that the universe does indeed appear to be fine tuned when one looks at the reasons for saying so. You don't seem to realize that what you are actually arguing against is the explanation for it's appearance by the other side. You don't seem to understand that you have no more proof your explanation of being the right one than the other side does. 

In short, you try to claim the supporters of a designer are guilty of argument from incredulity when your own is guilty of an A Priory fallacy, specifically, that it is know that the particular state of our universe is as likely as any other state.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.115  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.113    3 weeks ago
Good grief man, read this:

Yeah, I have, because I wrote it. Hopefully, after reading my last post, you now understand what I was getting at. Your argument is based on assumptions. I was trying to get you to see that your argument is based on something you don't even know exists, regarless of whether or not they are possible. Your argument is that, possibly there are an infinite possible ways this universe could have turned out so therefore a designer isn't responsible. Doesn't work and that is why you haven't actually debunked design. 

As for my own personal view of the possibility of other universes, I don't see why God couldn't have made more than one. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.116  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.115    3 weeks ago
Hopefully, after reading my last post, you now understand what I was getting at. Your argument is based on assumptions.

(sigh)

What I understand is that you ignore my direct rebuttals and instead spin new angles.   In this latest case you decided to take my rebuttals regarding the Fine-Tuning Argument (the argument for the existence of God based on a finely-tuned universe) and recast them as if we were only talking about the fine-tuning statement (the scientific finding).

Well that is not what we were debating and I of course reject your recasting.   If you wish to strictly debate the fine-tuning statement then we might pursue that, but I really do not see much there to debate.   The only debate would come from the Fine-Tuning Argument which includes the fine-tuning statement as a premise.

Generally, if there are an infinite number of possible universes then one like this is bound to show up sooner or later. That would certainly explain why we see a universe like this one that seems fine tuned for life. Another explanation, of course, is that it was designed. 

I did not claim there are an infinite number of possible universes, but rather a very large finite set of possibilities (N).   And the explanations given those possibilities is that we are lucky.   We are either lucky that the universe which enabled us to exist won by chance or we are lucky that a designer —an extremely complex and powerful entity whose existence is far more of a mystery than our universejust happened to exist to design and build our particular universe.    In short, the universe is a result of undirected force or it is the result of directed force whose existence is an additional assumption and is even more mysterious and unevidenced than the universe.

So, Fine Tuning doesn't address the possibility of other universes at all. The argument surrounding it does. 

And that argument is what I have focused on.   You knew that, right?

Thing is, neither position is provable at this point, but you argue as if one of them is already a given.

Do you reject the possibility that alternate universes are possible?   If so then you reject the fine-tuning statement.   I will assume that you do not reject this.   

Thus, we can assign N as the number of possible universes.   If we make no assumptions then the probability of a particular universe being the lucky winner is 1 / N.   This is probability 101.   This is akin to making no assumptions on a deal of cards (i.e. taking the default of a fair deal).    If we assume a designer who wants our particular universe (an assumption!) then the probability of our universe is 1.0 and all others is 0.0 (so not much to debate).   Assuming a designer with a mission is like assuming a cheating dealer.   The probabilities are no longer valid.

So let's not assume anything.  In this case we have a fair deal (either by a human being or by an act like cards being thrown into the air and picking the five cards that land closest to a predetermined dot on the floor).

In a fair deal, the number of distinct 5-card hands is 52! / 5! (52 - 5)!= 2,598,960.   Thus the probability of drawing a Royal Flush (analogous to our universe) is 1 / 2,598,960 (0.00000038).    Really tiny and much, much tinier with universes.   Funny thing, the probability of drawing crap (e.g. 2♠, K♦, 10♣, 8♥, 6♦) is also 0.00000038.   Unless we add assumptions, every specific Poker hand has the same probability.   And surely we know that some hands are much better than others.   But our human interpretations do not really matter here.   What matters is that with N possibilities and no additional information, the probability of any one possibility is 1/N.    

The probability of any particular universe, given no additional assumptions is 1/N.   


If you disagree with any of the above then quote and rebut.   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.117  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.116    3 weeks ago
What I understand is that you ignore my direct rebuttals and instead spin new angles. In this latest case you decided to take my rebuttals regarding the Fine-Tuning Argument (the argument for the existence of God based on a finely-tuned universe) and recast them as if we were only talking about the fine-tuning statement (the scientific finding).

What new angle? My point is, and has been throughout, that your claim that your argument debunks intelligent design is false. You claim it is argument from incredulity (when it isn't) even though your argument rests on an a priori logical fallacy. It doesn't matter whether other universes are possible or not. What's relevant is that you can't prove that they are or do exist. And that's the basis of your argument. I don't actually care what you believe about what's possible or how you word it. It doesn't matter beyond the fact that you can't prove it and you need to in order to rightly claim to have debunked intelligent design. All you have actually done is provide an alternative to an intelligent designer. 

The only debate would come from the Fine-Tuning Argument which includes the fine-tuning statement as a premise.

Yes, and the debate is how to explain the apparent fine tuning of the universe. But it isn't apparent to me that you realize you and I are not having that debate, although it seems you are trying to. My debate with you is whether or not you can correctly claim to have debunked intelligent design. 

And that argument is what I have focused on. You knew that, right?

If so, it's unfortunate because what I am trying to debate you on is whether your claim is correct. 

Do you reject the possibility that alternate universes are possible? If so then you reject the fine-tuning statement.

I reject that alternate universes are part of the statement. I do not reject that other universes are possible. Obviously, how those possible universes might come about is not something we would agree on. But again, not really relevant to what I began this discussion with. 

Why you keep posting that example is beyond me. I understood the principle long before I ever met you. It isn't difficult to understand.  The difference between your example being used to explain the apparent fine tuning and an actual deck of cards is that you can prove the deck exists.

While what you say is accurate, it's only relevance is that to use it as an example concerning fine tuning you have to assume that there are other universes. It is that assumption with which I am trying to talk to you about. That an intelligent designer is responsible for this universe is an assumption. That this universe is explained by chance involving multiple universes requires the assumption of those universes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.118  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.117    3 weeks ago
What new angle?

Recasting the debate from the Fine-Tuning Argument to simply the scientific observation known as fine-tuning (the fine-tuning statement):

Drakk @ 1.2.114 ⇨ First, let's be clear on just what we're calling an argument. Fine tuning is a statement .  ...  So, Fine Tuning doesn't address the possibility of other universes at all. 

And I even explained this ( because I wind up explaining everything repeatedly ) upfront in my opening paragraph:

TiG @ 1.2.116 In this latest case you decided to take my rebuttals regarding the Fine-Tuning Argument (the argument for the existence of God based on a finely-tuned universe) and recast them as if we were only talking about the fine-tuning statement (the scientific finding).

Did you not read this?   That is the new angle.   

You claim it is argument from incredulity (when it isn't) even though your argument rests on an a priori logical fallacy.

I demonstrated that it is based on the argument from incredulity fallacy.   And your claim is based on pretending that my lack of assumptions is really an assumption.  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif   You insist that I must assume a sentient entity exists and that by not making that assumption I am actually assuming it does not exist.   Note how logic works:

  1.  POSITIVE ASSUMPTION:   Assume a sentient entity exists  ( or assume that the Bible is divine )
  2.  NO ASSUMPTION:            Do not assume anything about a sentient entity ( or make no assumption about the Bible )
  3.  NEGATIVE ASSUMPTION:  Assume a sentient entity does not exist ( or assume that the Bible is not divine )

I went with 2.   I made no assumptions regarding a sentient entity.  And that is a really good approach since the fine-tuning argument for God is all about concluding that a sentient designer most likely exists.    ( You never acknowledge that it is absolutely critical to not assume what you seek to conclude. )

It doesn't matter whether other universes are possible or not.

Toss out the basis for the fine-tuning argument??   ( That changes the argument. )

What's relevant is that you can't prove that they are or do exist.

You introduced this spurious requirement out of thin air.   The fine-tuning argument begins with the premise that alternate universes are possible.   Apparently you want to remove that premise unless it can be proved that these universes are possible.   Do you not recognize that doing so not only changes the fine-tuning argument ( how many times must I note this? ) but also makes the fine-tuning argument pointless?   [ On another note, if you have information that shows these universes are impossible then you should write a paper because you are offering information that would turn our understanding of physics on its ear. ]

And that's the basis of your argument.

Well, yes, I actually am taking the fine-tuning argument as it stands (not playing around by inserting the premise of a sentient entity or removing the premise that alternate universes are possible).   After all, if one is going to debunk an argument, one should not change the argument.    That would be intellectually dishonest and pointless.

I don't actually care what you believe about what's possible or how you word it. 

You also seem to selectively ignore certain things I write.   It is not my belief , it is what the fine-tuning argument stipulates.   This is another extremely obvious fact that you refuse to accept.   Not sure what anyone can do when an interlocutor flat out ignores and/or attempts to change critical and blatantly obvious facts.   My approach is to simply call you out on it;  which you then ignore.

I reject that alternate universes are part of the statement.

Then, again ( so boring ) you are intentionally changing the fine-tuning argument .   If you do not accept the possibility of alternate universes then the fine-tuning argument itself is utter nonsense.   I will spell it out for you:


Fine-tuning argument

Premise 1 Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist.   If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist; a different universe would exist .   

Wikipedia (for convenience) offers 6 examples from a book:

  • N , the ratio of the   strength of electromagnetism   to the   strength of gravity   for a pair of protons, is approximately 10 36 . According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist. [12]
  • Epsilon   (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of   fusion from hydrogen to helium , is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the   strong nuclear force . [13]   If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the   Big Bang . Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%. [10] [12]
  • Omega   (Ω), commonly known as the   density parameter , is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed. [12] [14]
  • Lambda   (Λ), commonly known as the   cosmological constant , describes the ratio of the density of   dark energy   to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of   Planck units , and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, Λ, is on the order of 10 −122 . [15]   This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form. [12]
  • Q , the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10 −5 . If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees. [12]
  • D , the number of spatial   dimensions   in   spacetime , is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime. [12]   However, contends Rees, this does not preclude the existence of   ten-dimensional strings . [16]

Note that in each case, if a factor goes out of range the implication is that we are talking about a very different universe.   This, Drakk, would be one of the many alternative universes.   The very concept of fine-tuning includes the notion that if the dials were set differently then an alternate universe would exist instead of ours.  It does not presume that the different settings of dials are impossible.

In short, different settings of the dials defines a different universe.   And there are lots of dials with lots of settings.

Premise 2 There are N possible alternative universes.   N counts the enumeration of all the variations of the fine-tuning factors.   N is an incredibly large number.

You insist that I must prove that these N universes are possible.   I have yet to read any scientific finding that states that the only possible way a universe could exist is as ours.  It is always the opposite.   So, here again, you insert a premise that all the other universes are impossible ( incredulity by the way) and claim that I must prove they are possible.   Without any additional assumptions or information, the default is that the enumerated universes are all possible.  Unless you have reasons other than incredulity for why these alternate universe are impossible then your insistence is bogus.

But let's hypothesize anyway that the dynamics of existence (how the quintessential substance of existence interacts) makes it technically impossible for the strong nuclear force to be outside of the range we see.   ( This would be a staggering finding of science. )  That would make a whole class of alternate universes impossible.   So now let's apply this to other factors and pretend that we discover that ultimately N=3.   That is, of all the possible universes we can identify via enumerating the factors (setting the dials) only 3 could ever exist.   What are the implications?

Well, first of all, the fine-tuning argument is pointless.   One can no longer argue that: ' a sentient designer must be required because how else could universe 2 (ours) be the one that won instead of alternate universes 1 and 3? '.    Without our universe being highly unlikely, the fine-tuning argument has no wind in its sails.

In this case, you would likely abandon the fine-tuned universe argument and leap to fine-tuned physics.  You would then claim that the reason there are only 3 possible universes is because a sentient entity designed the rules of existence this way.   By sentient design, only 3 universes could possibly emerge.   Of course you have now presumed a sentient designer (which now you must prove) which is a far greater mystery than the rules of existence.  More complexity and mystery to explain the rules of existence which are less mysterious and less complex.    It is like explaining a volcanic eruption by claiming that Thor is angry.  Okay.  But now you have to explain Thor.    As an explanation, 'God did it' (and equivalent) always falls on its face because the solution is more complex and unknown than the problem it solves.

So now let's pretend that N can only be 1.   The rules of existence can only ever produce the universe we inhabit.   This is just a degenerate case of N=3.   No need for a designer because the universe need not be designed; it is automatic and guaranteed.   Again, to find God you must change your claim to be that a sentient designer set up the rules of existence in such a way that only our universe could emerge.   And same problem as with N=3, you add a more complex solution (the sentient entity) to explain away the rules of existence.   ( And this also gets back into the idea that the sentient entity is somehow not affected by the rules of existence.  Another problem, another topic. )

Premise 3 It is extremely unlikely that our universe is a result of chance

Here N must be a very large number (which is the current scientific case).  And in this case, sans additional assumptions or facts, the probability of our universe existing is 1/N (very tiny).   This is the question which begs incredulity:  ' how did our universe beat the odds? '.

Conclusion A sentient entity designed and built our universe.    The argument from incredulity rejects the possibility ( incredulity :  'just cannot be so') that our universe emerged by chance and concludes instead that it must be the act of a sentient designer.   


Repeating again what I have noted, any argument that offers a solution which is more complex and less understood than the problem it seeks to solve has transformed the problem into an even bigger problem.   It has kicked the can down the road without accomplishing anything.

If we make no assumptions we have 1/N.   If we assume a sentient designer ' did it ' then we are obliged to consider the likelihood of a sentient designer.   We cannot just presume the existence and intentions of the grandest possible entity in a debate where likelihood is the centerpiece.   It is funny that one of the possible universes winning the universal lottery is rejected on the grounds of incredulity yet the proposed solution of a supreme entity is accepted as if it were established fact.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.119  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.118    3 weeks ago
Recasting the debate from the Fine-Tuning Argument to simply the scientific observation known as fine-tuning (the fine-tuning statement):

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :

The term “fine-tuning” is used to characterize sensitive dependences of facts or properties on the values of certain parameters. Technological devices are paradigmatic examples of fine-tuning. Whether they function as intended depends sensitively on parameters that describe the shape, arrangement, and material properties of their constituents, e.g., the constituents’ conductivity, elasticity and thermal expansion coefficient. Technological devices are the products of actual “fine-tuners”—engineers and manufacturers who designed and built them—but for fine-tuning in the broad sense of this article to obtain, sensitivity with respect to the values of certain parameters is sufficient.
Philosophical debates in which “fine-tuning” appears are often about the universe’s fine-tuning for life: according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.

Do you see anything in here about possible other universes? Do you see anything in here about designers? This is an observation. The argument is about how to explain the observation. If you cannot understand this basic fact then this will be my last post to you on this subect. You claim you do but what you say shows you don't. For example:

In this latest case you decided to take my rebuttals regarding the Fine-Tuning Argument (the argument for the existence of God based on a finely-tuned universe) and recast them as if we were only talking about the fine-tuning statement (the scientific finding).

If this is how you took what I plainly said, you do not understand the difference between the statement and the arguments (plural) concerning the statement. The purpose was to clearly delineate the statement from the various arguments. One of those is the argument for the existence of God but that is not the only argument that results from the statement. There are other arguments as well, such as the one you present. Call it the argument from chance in an existence where multiple outcomes are possible. If you do not believe me then perhaps you'll believe the source mentioned above. 

Various reactions to the universe’s fine-tuning for life have been proposed: that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics; that the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions; and that fine-tuning for life indicates the existence of multiple other universes with conditions very different from those in our own universe.

Each one is it's own argument from fine tuning. Not one of them can be proven to be the correct answer. It may be your opinion that those who choose the designer argument as most likely are committing an argument from incredulity fallacy, but then, you'd have to accept that anyone who chooses any of the others as the most likely answer are doing exactly the same thing as they have no more basis for their choice as any of the others. 

I demonstrated that it is based on the argument from incredulity fallacy. And your claim is based on pretending that my lack of assumptions is really an assumption.

Not an assumption? Then you've proven that other universes are possible or that they exist? I'd like to see a link, please. 

You insist that I must assume a sentient entity exists and that by not making that assumption I am actually assuming it does not exist.

Please quote me insisting anything even remotely like this. 

Toss out the basis for the fine-tuning argument??

Try to understand, TiG, that it is the basis of YOUR argument, not THE argument. There is no THE argument because there are several. 

You introduced this spurious requirement out of thin air. The fine-tuning argument begins with the premise that alternate universes are possible.

No. No, no, no. That is the premise of YOUR argument. The premise of the religious is that God did it. The premise of those who don't believe either have the premise of just blind luck or that it will be explained by a better understanding of laws in the future. 

Well, yes, I actually am taking the fine-tuning argument as it stands (not playing around by inserting the premise of a sentient entity or removing the premise that alternate universes are possible). After all, if one is going to debunk an argument, one should not change the argument.

I am not changing the argument. At this point I'm just trying to get you to understand what the argument is. You seem to mash everything together as if there were just one single argument. Apparently, this is why you think I add or remove things. You think I am inserting a designer. Nope. That's the premise in the argument for a designer. You think I'm trying to remove the premise that alternate universes are possible. Nope. That's the premise of your argument.

I can only assume you think so because, in your mind, other possible universes and an intelligent designers are supposed to be premises in the same argument. If that's the case, go back and read what I said again. I've never said your argument shouldn't assume multiple possible universes. That's a part of your argument. In fact, I've said more than once that such an argument would certainly explain why we observe the universe we see. So does the case for a designer. Two different arguments. 

You also seem to selectively ignore certain things I write. It is not my belief , it is what the fine-tuning argument stipulates. This is another extremely obvious fact that you refuse to accept.

That would be because it is NOT what the fine tuning argument stipulates, it's what YOUR fine tuning argument stipulates. It is your answer to why the universe appears as it does. For others, it is a designer that explains it. You cannot combine the two into one argument. You can only argue why yours is better than another's. 

After all, if one is going to debunk an argument, one should not change the argument. That would be intellectually dishonest and pointless.

I would agree, so I'm just going to assume that you haven't yet understood the argument. 

Concerning your premises:

Note that in each case, if a factor goes out of range the implication is that we are talking about a very different universe. This, Drakk, would be one of the many alternative universes. The very concept of fine-tuning includes the notion that if the dials were set differently then an alternate universe would exist instead of ours. It does not presume that the different settings of dials are impossible.

Premise 1. Yes, it would be different, but one of many different universes is not a part of this premise. It would be it's own premise, which you label as Premise 2. Premise 3 doesn't' belong in your chain of reasoning because it doesn't follow from the second premise. Your conclusion makes no sense because of the problem with Premise 3 and that it doesn't follow from Premise 2.

Premise 1   Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist. If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist; a different universe would exist . 

Premise 2 There are N possible alternative universes. N counts the enumeration of all the variations of the fine-tuning factors. N is an incredibly large number.

Conclusion   Given N being an incredibly large number, it is inevitable that chance would eventually produce the universe we observe today.    

That is your argument, or close enough to be getting on with, anyway. Now let's look at the intelligent design argument. 

Premise 1   Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist. If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist; a different universe would exist .

Premise 2   It is extremely unlikely that so many factors, each having to be what they are, could happen by chance.

Conclusion   The universe was designed by a sentient designer. 

Apparently, what you've attempted is try to frame the supporters of intelligent design's argument within your own argument. Of course that will not work and of course the conclusion is going to be silly. That is what you've been doing all along. This is why you keep insisting I'm inserting a designer or removing possible universes. Nope. I've just treated each argument as separate, while apparently you've been trying to squash them together. 

If we make no assumptions we have 1/N.

But saing "we have 1/N" IS the assumption. Don't you see that? When you say "we have 1/N" your saying we know there are other universes out there. But we don't have 1/N of universes. All you have is the possibility that there are 1/N universes out there. No different than those who assume that an intelligent designer is responsible. 

If we assume a sentient designer ' did it ' then we are obliged to consider the likelihood of a sentient designer.

No individual is "obliged" to consider the likelihood of a sentient designer. Only those who recognize an intelligent designer remains a possibility until proven otherwise. One could consider it to be possible simply on principle but give it no real consideration but perhaps that individual would be guilty of incredulity as well. 

It is funny that one of the possible universes winning the universal lottery is rejected on the grounds of incredulity yet the proposed solution of a supreme entity is accepted as if it were established fact.

It is also funny that an intelligent designer being responsible for this universe is rejected on the grounds of incredulity yet the proposed solution is that this universe was the winner of some universal lotter as if it were established fact. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.120  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.119    3 weeks ago

There is only one argument in question and that is the fine-tuning argument from design.   That is the argument of my article and it is the argument that I have been talking about.   Tossing in other arguments which fall under the category of fine-tuning is irrelevant.

I did not invent the fine-tuning argument from design.   So your claiming that it is MY argument is nonsense unless you are ( strangely ) trying to say that it is the argument in question.  It is the argument in question, but I did not invent it.

The fine-tuning argument from design does not presume a sentient designer, it concludes it.   Further, this argument does not preclude alternate universes.   It assumes that different settings in the universal factors would produce a different universe.   That, by the way, is the scientific position.

I realize you want to change these facts but, as you can tell, I am calling you out on this practice.   Instead of directly addressing my rebuttals you keep introducing irrelevant tangents to debate while claiming that I do not understand pretty much everything in this topic.   Not the most admirable tactic to use especially since I doubt anyone is reading our posts at this point so putting on a show is both pointless and counter-productive.

That said, I will address your other points.


Please quote me insisting anything even remotely like this [ You insist that I must assume a sentient entity exists and that by not making that assumption I am actually assuming it does not exist. ]. 

Done.  You forgot one of your main 'lines' in my article on the fine-tuning argument?    Starting with your very first post in 4:

Drakk @ 4 ⇨ Only if one operates on the assumption that universes are not generated by some sentient entity such as God. 
Drakk @ 4.1.1 ⇨ Of course, people like me start with a belief in that sentient entity and we use this as evidence to justify our belief. But it is also an assumption to not add one, as there is no evidence that there is not.

Stroll through your comments in the article and you will see plenty more of the same.   You hold that it is an assumption to not presume a sentient entity who serves as the designer.   (But if you want to equivocate that is fine with me.)

Premise 1. Yes, it would be different, but one of many different universes is not a part of this premise. It would be it's own premise, which you label as Premise 2. 

Premise 1 and premise 2 are just premises.   In logic, premises do not necessarily have to be in any particular order.   They just have to work together for the conclusion.   Your critique is flawed.   

Premise 3 doesn't' belong in your chain of reasoning because it doesn't follow from the second premise.

Premise 3 actually does correlate well with premise 2.   Regardless, premises are not required to follow from each other.   The conclusion (and intermediate sub-conclusions) is where the connections are made.   Read up on how logic works before you start engaging in a critique.

Your conclusion makes no sense because of the problem with Premise 3 and that it doesn't follow from Premise 2.

Because you have spurious rules of logic of your own making, your analysis is naive and wrong.   

Apparently, what you've attempted is try to frame the supporters of intelligent design's argument within your own argument.

The fine-tuning argument from design is not 'my' argument.   It is well established.   The fact that you refuse to accept that illustrates to me that you are doing everything you can to avoid directly dealing with the argument and my rebuttal of same. 

But saying "we have 1/N" IS the assumption. 

It is silly for you to insist that enumerating the factors of fine-tuning does not produce N possible universes.   Given no additional information and making no assumptions, each possible universe has a probability of 1/N.   To change that you must provide additional information or introduce an assumption.   If you have that information then provide it and we can work with it.  If not, your protests are just noise.

No individual is "obliged" to consider the likelihood of a sentient designer.

Note that this is not the argument in question.   That established, if you assume a sentient designer created the universe vs. an assumption that our universe emerged by chance, then the probability of your assumption depends upon the probability that this sentient designer exists and acted to create our universe.   You have kicked the can to a sentient designer so now the question becomes P designer > P chance ?   That is, is the existence of a designer who chose our universe more likely than the existence of our universe by chance.   Again, this is a sidebar.

It is also funny that an intelligent designer being responsible for this universe is rejected on the grounds of incredulity yet the proposed solution is that this universe was the winner of some universal lotter as if it were established fact. 

All along you have insulted my intelligence routinely claiming I do not understand my own argument, etc. and here you are at the end offering this bit of exquisite nonsense.   I will consider it a gift;  I will now reciprocate.

... an intelligent designer being responsible for this universe is rejected on the grounds of incredulity ...

Showing that the argument from design is based on the fallacy of incredulity says absolutely nothing about whether or not a sentient entity (intelligent designer) created the known universe.  Rather, it shows that the argument from design is fallacious and that its conclusion is unsound.  ⇦⇦⇦⇦⇦ Read this sentence .

The argument being fallacious does not mean that there is no sentient designer nor does it diminish the likelihood of a designer in any way.   It simply means that the argument's conclusion is unsupported.  In other words, it shows that this particular argument is flawed but that does not mean all arguments that draw that conclusion are flawed.   In short, the conclusion itself is not deemed false just because the argument sucks.   

... universe was the winner of some universal lotter[y] as if it were established fact ...

Further, and for the same reasons, showing the argument from design to be a fallacy does not mean that the opposite is true — that our universe is the result of chance.   It does not raise or lower that probability.   Again, showing an argument fallacious just means its conclusion is not justified.   That has zero bearing on the truth of false of the conclusion.   

Do some research on your own regarding formal arguments and propositional logic.   Use a third party authority to explain the details of premises, conclusions and the propositional logic that connects them.   Clearly you will ignore everything I say on the subject so the only way you will learn this is to go on sabbatical.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.121  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.120    3 weeks ago
Done.  You forgot one of your main 'lines' in my article on the fine-tuning argument?

No, I haven't forgotten. Further, I stand by it. Unfortunately, you don't understand the comments. I will explain it to you. First, I will post what I was replying to. Then, I will post the full quote, not just the one sentence. 

A key thing to understand in the argument for fine tuning is that the particular state that is our universe is as likely as any other potential universe. (You) Only if one operates on the assumption that universes are not generated by some sentient entity such as God. It assumes that there is a thing called "nature" which does not involve such a being and universes are a natural progression of that nature. (Me)

This is not an insistence that God or some other entity be included. It is simply a statement of fact. When one puts forth the argument that a multiverse can explain fine tuning they aren't including God in the argument. Including God would destroy the argument. The point for saying it was to differentiate the argument from design from the argument of the multiverse. It was neither a complaint that a designer wasn't included or a demand that you do so. So, not the example you claim. Let's look at the next example, but the full text.

Adding a sentient entity is what adds an assumption. (You) Maybe, but I think it would be more of a conclusion than an assumption. Of course, people like me start with a belief in that sentient entity and we use this as evidence to justify our belief. But it is also an assumption to not add one, as there is no evidence that there is not. For most of the history of the world, people believed such an entity was responsible. Then one day the idea that there wasn't took off. The "enlightenment", more or less. They put forth that maybe there was no God and this is just all natural. Until their view is proven, it's an assumption. (Me)

Again, there's nothing in this except fact. There is no appeal or complaint concerning a designer or lack of one. The argument from the multiverse assumes that this universe can be explained without a designer being responsible. That's just the way the argument goes. For some reason you read these words and somehow come up with the idea that I am insisting that a designer be included. I can't figure out how you do it. 

But ask yourself this. Although it is wrong to put it in terms of "adding" a sentient entity as it is a conclusion to an argument, why do you think it is an assumption? Would it not be because there's no proof of one? If so, then the same can be said for a multiverse, as there's no proof of one of those, either. So would it not also be an assumption for the same reason? 

Of course, you might answer, because it isn't necessary. I hope you don't. 

Premise 1 and premise 2 are just premises. In logic, premises do not necessarily have to be in any particular order. They just have to work together for the conclusion.

Except I didn't say anything about order. 

Premise 3 actually does correlate well with premise 2.

How? 

Regardless, premises are not required to follow from each other.

You are correct and my mistake. Poor word choice. What I should have said was that Premise 2 conflicts with premise 3, unless you can explain how they correlate. 

Because you have spurious rules of logic of your own making, your analysis is naive and wrong.

So then, you believe the conclusion makes sense given the Premises?

The fine-tuning argument from design is not 'my' argument.

No, it isn't and I didn't say it was. This is what I said was your argument.

Premise 1 Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist. If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist; a different universe would exist .


Premise 2 There are N possible alternative universes. N counts the enumeration of all the variations of the fine-tuning factors. N is an incredibly large number.


Conclusion Given N being an incredibly large number, it is inevitable that chance would eventually produce the universe we observe today.

This is your argument or, rather, argument from multiverse. I assumed, wrongly apparently, that you would understand this. I call it yours because it is what you go to in your attempt to debunk argument from design. It's not correct to call it the fine tuning argument because it misidentifies the actual debate. Fine tuning in and of itself has nothing to do with either a designer or a multiverse. Nor was it invented by religion. Scientists developed it and is simply an observation about the universe. 

From Wiki,

In 1913, the chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878–1942) wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore concepts of fine tuning in the universe. Henderson discusses the importance of water and the environment with respect to living things, pointing out that life depends entirely on the very specific environmental conditions on Earth, especially with regard to the prevalence and properties of water.[5]


In 1961, physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the universe.[6][7] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his 1984 book The Intelligent Universe. "The list of anthropic properties, apparent accidents of a non-biological nature without which carbon-based and hence human life could not exist, is large and impressive."[8]


John Gribbin and Martin Rees wrote a detailed history and defence of the fine-tuning argument in their book Cosmic Coincidences (1989). According to Gribbin and Rees, "The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity. But the question remains – is the Universe tailor-made for man?"[2]

It began as a scientific observation of our universe and the debate is about how to explain it. It is simply wrong and stubborn to insist that the fine tuning argument be reduced to what you want it to be. 

The fact that you refuse to accept that illustrates to me that you are doing everything you can to avoid directly dealing with the argument and my rebuttal of same.

From my point of view, I'm doing all I can to directly deal with the argument. The hard part is getting you to recognize what the argument actually is. This could be easily settled if you just read the link I provided earlier to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .  

All along you have insulted my intelligence routinely claiming I do not understand my own argument, etc.

Um, I think I put it in terms of you not knowing what the actual argument is. I'm sure you understand the argument you've been making, which isn't the same thing. 

and here you are at the end offering this bit of exquisite nonsense.

It's just the opposite side of the coin you presented. What's the problem? 

Showing that the argument from design is based on the fallacy of incredulity says absolutely nothing about whether or not a sentient entity (intelligent designer) created the known universe. Rather, it shows that the argument from design is fallacious and that its conclusion is unsound.

Yeah, about that. When are you going to show it is fallacious?

The argument being fallacious does not mean that there is no sentient designer nor does it diminish the likelihood of a designer in any way. It simply means that the argument's conclusion is unsupported.

Didn't claim that it meant there was no sentient designer or diminish the likelihood of a designer. I was not confused about this and the thought never entered my head. As far as unsupported, that's not true, as the argument from design has it's premises, too, and I've already listed them. 

But if you don't accept that, then for the same reason you must conclude that argument from multiverse is also fallacious for the same reason. It also is unsupported. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.122  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.121    3 weeks ago
This is not an insistence that God or some other entity be included.

Let's be clear:   (I am going to use 'FTAD' to stand for the only argument I have addressed in this topic:  the fine-tuning argument for design)

You were objecting to enumerating the possible N universes and assigning a default probability of 1 N .   Outside of any additional information, 1 N is the probability.   This is basic math.   Thus:

TiG ⇨ A key thing to understand in the argument for fine tuning is that the particular state that is our universe is as likely as any other potential universe.
Drakk ⇨ Only if one operates on the assumption that universes are not generated by some sentient entity such as God. It assumes that there is a thing called "nature" which does not involve such a being and universes are a natural progression of that nature. 

Here ⇧ you portray the lack of assuming a sentient entity to be the assumption of no sentient entity.   That binary thinking is faulty.   There are three options, not two:

  1. Assume a sentient entity
  2. Assume no sentient entity
  3. Make no assumptions

Indeed it correlates with the classical concept of knowledge with respect to the existence of a god:   

  1. Gnostic Theists:   Know a particular god exists
  2. Gnostic Atheists:  Know no god exists
  3. Agnostics:           Do not know if a god exists or not

Not making an assumption one way or the other on the presence of a sentient entity is option 3.

That established, there is no assumption of a sentient entity and no assumption that there is no sentient entity; no assumptions period.   The argument is based on what we know.   Assuming a sentient entity exists or that no sentient entity exists is assuming that for which we cannot assign a truth value.   Including that as a premise makes any argument unsound.

In short, as I noted, you insist that I must make an assumption that there is no sentient entity to be able to deliver the default probability of 1 N That is faulty reasoning.   The default probability is based on what is known — no assumptions necessary and none made.

It is simply a statement of fact. When one puts forth the argument that a multiverse can explain fine tuning they aren't including God in the argument.

My analysis of the FTAD has nothing to do with the multiverse concept and does not seek to explain fine-tuning.   The FTAD itself has nothing to do with the multiverse concept and seeks to conclude a sentient entity;  it uses fine-tuning as part of the argument and is not trying to explain fine-tuning.   

Including God would destroy the argument.

That is correct.   The FTAD seeks to conclude a sentient designer.   Including God as a premise would make the FTAD a begging-the-question fallacy.   I have noted this several times.

The point for saying it was to differentiate the argument from design from the argument of the multiverse.

You seek to differentiate the argument I was critiquing (FTAD) from an ' argument of the multiverse '?   Why?   I made no mention of such an argument and was not describing the multiverse concept.   (Multiverse is not the same as alternate possible universes.)   Your differentiation was unnecessary.

In short, in full text, what I stated is exactly what the text shows:  you insist that I must make an assumption that there is no sentient entity to be able to deliver the default probability of 1 N


The argument from the multiverse assumes that this universe can be explained without a designer being responsible. That's just the way the argument goes. For some reason you read these words and somehow come up with the idea that I am insisting that a designer be included. I can't figure out how you do it. 

Again, given you are talking about ' argument from the multiverse ', an argument that I have not even mentioned, there is no point on my weighing in on this.  (Multiverse is not the same as alternate possible universes.)

Except I didn't say anything about order. 

Having spent time breaking this down for you I am not going to waste any more effort on your attempts at semantic nit-picking.  


No, it isn't and I didn't say it was. This is what I said was your argument. Premise 1 Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist. If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist; a different universe would exist .

Premise 2 There are N possible alternative universes. N counts the enumeration of all the variations of the fine-tuning factors. N is an incredibly large number.

Conclusion Given N being an incredibly large number, it is inevitable that chance would eventually produce the universe we observe today.

That is not my argument.  You took the first two premises verbatim in my description of the FTAD and then fabricated a bizarre conclusion and attributed same to me.  

The FTAD (the argument I am critiquing) does not conclude that it is inevitable our universe is a result of chance (it concludes the opposite).   Further, I have made no argument ever that concludes it is inevitable that our universe is a result of chance.  So there is no other ' my' argument.  The above is not an argument I have made nor is it an argument I would make.  It is a ridiculous argument.  How you got this in your head is beyond me.

The FTAD, as I described it to you @ 1.2.118 , is this (omitting my lengthy commentaries on each premise):

Premise 1    Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist.   If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist;   a different universe would exist   .   

Premise 2    There are N possible alternative universes.   N counts the enumeration of all the variations of the fine-tuning factors.   N is an incredibly large number.

Premise 3    It is extremely unlikely that our universe is a result of chance

Conclusion    A sentient entity designed and built our universe.    

Note that the conclusion is:  " A sentient entity designed and built our universe .".   

This is an argument from incredulity (a fallacy) because it rejects the possibility (   incredulity   :  ' just cannot be so ' ) that our universe emerged by chance and concludes instead that it must be the act of a sentient designer.   Fallacious arguments are unsound.   The conclusion of a fallacious argument is unjustified.


It is simply wrong and stubborn to insist that the fine tuning argument be reduced to what you want it to be. 

Make up your mind Drakk.   You made a big deal that the fine-tuning of the universe (scientific observation) is not an argument and I immediately agreed.   You then pointed out that there are multiple arguments that include the fine-tuning of the universe as a premise.  I immediately agreed.   And then I noted that I am specifically talking about the FTAD.   Now, here, you seem to be pretending that there is only one fine-tuning argument. 

Figure out what point you wish to make.   


Um, I think I put it in terms of you not knowing what the actual argument is. 

Given I am the one who selected the FTAD I certainly know what the actual argument is (actual=the one in context).   Given you recognize that there are plenty of arguments that fall under the category of fine-tuning arguments you clearly know that there is no single ' the actual argument '.   The actual argument is the one that I introduced.   Any other argument is out of context and you either are confused or are introducing other arguments as a distraction.  Either way, I am not going to chase your tangent.


It's just the opposite side of the coin you presented. What's the problem? 

If you had read what I wrote you would know the problem since I described it.  No point in my repeating myself here since my words of explanation are still visible.


When are you going to show it is fallacious?

( link )    I am aware that you disagree.   Given you think I am talking about the multiverse concept, among other misconceptions, I am not going to lose sleep over this.

But if you don't accept that, then for the same reason you must conclude that argument from multiverse is also fallacious for the same reason.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif   ( Again with this ' argument from multiverse '.   No such argument has been made by me.   No such argument has been referenced by me.   Figure out what you are talking about. )

But I will say this in closing.   If an argument were made which concluded that our universe must be a result of chance ( based on what we know today ) then that would also very likely be an argument from incredulity.   I cannot weigh in on it specifically unless I see the actual argument.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.123  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.122    3 weeks ago
Let's be clear:   (I am going to use 'FTAD' to stand for the only argument I have addressed in this topic:  the fine-tuning argument for design)

Ye, let's. Until you understand that it isn't the only argument you are addressing there is no point in continuing. Proof that you are also addressing fine tuning argument for multiverse is right here.

You were objecting to enumerating the possible N universes and assigning a default probability of 1 ⁄ N . Outside of any additional information, 1 ⁄ N is the probability. This is basic math.

This comes from argument from multiverse and is not apart of argument from design. And I wasn't objecting to you using it, I was objecting your claiming that argument from multiverse defeats argument from design. It only has the potential, not certainty, to do that only if you can prove there's a multiverse. And to be as clear as I can, in no way is 1/N a part of argument from design. Period.

I would respond to the rest but there's no point until you figure out you're addressing two different arguments. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2.124  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.122    3 weeks ago

To help you along, should you care to find out what FTAD actually is, let me give you an example of what it is not.

The FTAD, as I described it to you @ 1.2.118 , is this (omitting my lengthy commentaries on each premise):

Premise 1 ☞ Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist. If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist; a different universe would exist .

Premise 2 ☞ There are N possible alternative universes. N counts the enumeration of all the variations of the fine-tuning factors. N is an incredibly large number.

Premise 3 ☞ It is extremely unlikely that our universe is a result of chance


Conclusion ☞ A sentient entity designed and built our universe.

First, the conclusion in premise one is wrong. It isn't that a different universe would exist. It is that life in this universe wouldn't exist. That is the point of FTAD after all. That life couldn't exist unless certain values were what they are. 

Second, Premise two does not belong in FTAD, unless you are creating a TiG version and not bothering with the actual FTAD. That premise is straight out of FTAM and no one who understands the argument would include it in FTAD. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.125  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.123    3 weeks ago
Until you understand that it isn't the only argument you are addressing there is no point in continuing.

Apparently it does not matter what I write; you just keep repeating your claims.   The practice is obnoxious.

Since you give credence to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the following might not be so easily dismissed:

A classic response to the observation that the conditions in our universe seem fine-tuned for life is to infer the existence of a cosmic designer who created life-friendly conditions.  If one identifies this designer with some supernatural agent or God, the inference from fine-tuning for life to the existence of a designer becomes a version of the teleological argument .  Indeed, many regard the argument from fine-tuning for a designer as the strongest version of the teleological argument that contemporary science affords.

There are plenty of ways to express this argument (i.e. many ways to formulate the argument) but they all ultimately argue for a sentient designer of the universe (and that is the conclusion ) due to the extremely low probability that our universe (or, less restrictive, a universe that can support life) would be the one that just happens to exist (established in the premises ).   To wit, it is inconceivable that —out of all the potential alternative universes that could arise by different fine-tuning factors— our universe (or any of the likely many universes that could host life of any form) would be the one that just happened to win the universe lottery.   That, Drakk, is incredulity .

Proof that you are also addressing fine tuning argument for multiverse is right here.

How funny.   Clearly you have no clue what the multiverse is and have ignored my suggestion to do some research on it.    Multiverse deals with many simultaneous universes.   I have been talking about 1 of N universes (the 1 is ours) and the many alternative possible universes (the N-1 that did not come to be).   This confusion of yours is why you think that my illustrating the probability of alternatives to our universe is the same as multiverse.   That has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of multiverse so get that thought out of your head.    Many simultaneous (multiverse) is profoundly different from one of many possible alternatives (1 of N) .

First, the conclusion in premise one is wrong. It isn't that a different universe would exist. It is that life in this universe wouldn't exist. That is the point of FTAD after all. That life couldn't exist unless certain values were what they are. 

( There is no such thing as a conclusion in a premise. )   

The way I expressed the argument implicitly deals with life as we know it ;  I referred to the existence of our particular universe .   That is even rarer than a universe that could contain life.   There are likely many configurations of universes that would sustain life of some form.   Some universes might enable silicon life, some would allow carbon life but not as we know it.   Imagine how many universes could support life but not intelligent life.    The possible alternative universes that could hold life of any form are almost certainly greater than 1 (our universe).   So if you want to loosen things to any form of life you will make it more likely for a universe to happen by chance.   Instead of 1 / N  (my more restrictive formulation) we have L / N where L=number of possible universes that can sustain any form of life (including just the most primitive forms). 

Think about that.   Either way, makes no difference to me or my rebuttal to FTAD.  

Second, Premise two does not belong in FTAD, unless you are creating a TiG version and not bothering with the actual FTAD. That premise is straight out of FTAM and no one who understands the argument would include it in FTAD. 

( see my opening comment )

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.3  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Kathleen @1    one month ago

Energy. Without it, there could be absolutely no existence of any kind as we know it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.3    one month ago

... and whatever energy is composed of, ad infinitum.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.3.2  author  Kathleen  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.3    one month ago

I have heard energy cannot be destroyed. It only changes.  That makes you wonder too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @1.3.2    one month ago

Per the physics we have observed.   

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Kathleen @1    4 weeks ago

So what we should be able to conclude from this is that it doesn't really matter.  No Pun intended.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @1    3 weeks ago

To me, the short answer would be just another universe. I believe it is a self repeating process.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2  TᵢG    one month ago

Let's start off with what we know:   

  1. Things exists.    Existence IS.
  2. Things are composed of something:  thing ⇨ atoms ⇨ (protons, neutrons, electrons) ⇨ particles (bosons, fermions) ⇨ … ⇨ 'energy'? ⇨ … .
  3. We also know that something is not nothing (by definition).  
  4. This means that something has always existed.   
  5. Thus existence is eternal.

So, in English, this suggests to me that causally prior to the Big Bang something did indeed exist.   That something (at least a portion of it) destabilized into a rapid expansion that (through much subsequent complex interaction) resulted in our universe.

I consider this 'something' to be quintessential existence (the most basic substance comprising everything that exists).   In other words:  things ⇨ atoms ⇨ particles ⇨ … ⇨ quintessential existence.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @2    one month ago

Mass, likely ping-pongs back and forth between dimensions and creates new universes as an aftereffect.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @2    one month ago

I have read something very similar to what you said long ago. It sounds like most likely what it’s all about. I always envisioned this huge white space with absolutely nothing in it. Sort of like a blank palette for an artist to begin his or her work.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @2.2    one month ago

My analogy would be the water vapor in the atmosphere that extemporaneously forms cloud figures (forms).   These forms come about as a result of many complex interactions of atoms and are temporary; they evolve and devolve.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.2  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    one month ago

I wonder what made the atoms?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.2    one month ago

Per physics, the basic atoms of Hydrogen and Helium formed when the Big Bang plasma cooled enough to allow the strong nuclear force to fuse protons and neutrons into Hydrogen (H), Helium (He) and a trace amounts of Lithium (Li) and Berylium (Be) atoms.   These are the simplest atoms in nature.   All of the heavier atoms are a result of fusion of these basic types (especially H and He).   This fusion all takes place in stars which will form millions of years later.   Our universe was largely a bunch of Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium and Berylium gas for about 200 million years.

At about 200 million years, stars formed and begin fusing H into higher forms.   The normal stars like ours will fuse the elements H ⇨ He.   When it is a red giant it will deliver Carbon (C), Nitrogen (N) and Oxygen (O) atoms by converting He ⇨ C and C ⇨ O and C+H ⇨ N.   Larger stars fuse heavier elements up to Iron (Fe).    When those stars eventually collapse on their Iron cores and then explode into a supernova, all the remaining elements (atoms) that we know are created.

So science knows quite a bit about what made the atoms.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.3    one month ago

To take it 1 step further, the heavier elements created by stars then become rocky terrestrial type planets, like Earth and the other inner solar system planets.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.2    one month ago

And the Big Bang plasma just appeared. Like magic!

The talk of atoms in nature don't answer WHERE or HOW the atoms came to be originally.

If they came from something else or were a product of something else, what created where they came from or how were they created?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.5    one month ago
And the Big Bang plasma just appeared. Like magic!

It is the result of the chain reaction of the Big Bang.

The talk of atoms in nature don't answer WHERE or HOW the atoms came to be originally.

You are not paying attention.   Nowadays, what I just described is taught in High School and undergraduate courses in College.   It is also easily found on the web if you are ever interested in learning more about what science has discovered regarding cosmological evolution.

If they came from something else or were a product of something else, what created where they came from or how were they created?

You are really not paying attention.  jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.7  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.3    one month ago

I remember that in science class many years ago.  Interesting indeed and thank you for explaining it.

Which brings me to wonder what actually created these gases to form the stars, atoms and planets. All the elements that you mentioned to make these atoms, how were these made? Maybe before the atoms.

I think what I am getting at is the very beginning of everything.... before the elements that made up the universe. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.8  author  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.5    one month ago

You mean what was before the Big Bang....

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.8    one month ago

The honest answer is, no one knows. But to invoke a god or other supernatural or otherwise irrational explanation is just intellectually lazy and/or dishonest. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.8    one month ago

Exactly!

No one knows for sure, so our guesses are as good as anyone's!

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.11  author  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.9    one month ago

It is an easy way out. You just say... the super being did it.. it’s not that easy. Science and mathematics has to come in there somewhere... lol

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.12  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.3    one month ago

Makes me want to take a science course again.. : )

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.11    one month ago

Easy way out for sure. It's one that requires no thought or logical analysis. And it can be applied to anything. Simple, lazy, and irrational.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.14  author  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.10    one month ago

Some things we do, like what Tig was explaining, but there are still unknowns out there. 

I wonder if there is  other intelligent life out there in the universe that does have more answers then us..

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.10    one month ago

Oh, so it's only a "guess" that "god did it?" Odd how some people say that as matter of fact.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.16  author  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.13    one month ago

Very true, but I need more then that. I can’t sit back and accept that for an answer. 

It is interesting to hear everyone’s take on this though.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.12    one month ago

Nothing wrong with that Kathleen. More people should take science classes. Some clearly need it too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.7    one month ago

As I noted in my first comment, science can only speculate (albeit based on extrapolating from well established science) what took place in the Planck epoch (the first 10 -43 seconds).   The next epoch is the Grand Unification Epoch where the fundamental forces are forming, followed later by the particles and then the initial four elements.

All sorts of things are taking place at this stage so I recommend reading a good summary such as this in Wikipedia .

This is all very well established science so there are plenty of details to be found if one is interested.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.16    one month ago

I'm with you on that. Baseless explanations or claims are meaningless. I need evidence. The search for or analysis of evidence is what's really interesting. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.20  author  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.17    one month ago

Yeah, and math too, I stuck with art and music. : )

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.21  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.18    one month ago

I will, thank you for the posts.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.20    one month ago

"Sometimes science is more art than science. A lot of people don't get that." ---Rick Sanchez, "Rick potion no. 9," Ricky & Morty 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.23  author  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.22    one month ago

Art is important, we live it everyday. From the clothes we where, the house and furniture are designed by someone. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.24  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.23    one month ago

Not to dis art, but i'll stick with science. That has more practical applications. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.15    one month ago
Oh, so it's only a "guess" that "god did it?"

Is there anything in particular about this post that you didn't understand?

"No one knows for sure, so our guesses are as good as anyone's!"

Is that substantially different than your words--"The honest answer is, no one knows."?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.26  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.25    one month ago

Actually yes, it is different. Even a guess should have some rational basis to go on. Otherwise, one can come up with any kind of BS! An intellectually honest person wouldn't come up with a "guess" without some kind of information or evidence to go on. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.26    one month ago
Even a guess should have some rational basis to go on.

Do you know what Kathleen or my guess even IS?

An intellectually honest person wouldn't come up with a "guess"

Isn't that kind of what you are doing--making ill-informed "guesses" about my position?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.28  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.27    one month ago

Depends on what the "guess" is. I'm not making any guesses.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.26    one month ago

Indeed, very different.

Science extrapolates to the singularity but known physics breaks down at that point so there are many possibilities that science just cannot see.   So the correct answer is 'I do not know'.   

Not knowing does not give license to toss in any crazy idea that one wants.  Although this is one of the few remaining gaps in which to insert God. 

Whatever took place in the singularity needs to be consistent with known science at 10-43 seconds.   So the possibilities are constrained.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.30  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.29    one month ago

It seems when it comes to coming up with some kind of explanation for things or even guessing, there are those that will throw out any crazy idea. But that doesn't mean it's not [in my best Samuel L. Jackson voice] "a stupid-@ss guess!"

Lol

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.30    one month ago

And to whom are you referring to that will throw out crazy ideas?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.32  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.31    one month ago

Depends on what the idea is and who's throwing it out there. Why don't you get to the point!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.32    one month ago

I thought (mistakenly, for sure!) that you had someone specific in mind based on your comment.

Sorry, my mistake!

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.34  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.33    one month ago

Yes, it seems you are mistaken.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.34    one month ago

So you didn't have anyone in particular in mind when you wrote that.

Good to know!

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.36  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.5    one month ago
If they came from something else or were a product of something else, what created where they came from or how were they created?

That's an endless loop. You're leading towards a creator, I assume - so what created the creator?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.37  Bob Nelson  replied to  katrix @2.2.36    one month ago
so what created the creator?

That's Asimov's Last Question , formulated a bit differently... jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @2.2.36    one month ago

Always.   The answer is predetermined; it is always a game of trying to find a path to that answer.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.3  SteevieGee  replied to  TᵢG @2    one month ago

The universe consists of matter and energy both of which can neither be created or destroyed, only changed.  Matter is attracted to other matter because of gravity so it could be that when too much mass accumulates in one place it creates something like a big bang.  The universe has always been here and always will be.  It is just constantly changing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  SteevieGee @2.3    one month ago
The universe consists of matter and energy both of which can neither be created or destroyed, only changed. 

True in the known universe (as far as we can tell).   If there is anything outside of the known universe, we cannot presume it behaves the same.

Matter is attracted to other matter because of gravity so it could be that when too much mass accumulates in one place it creates something like a big bang. 

Indeed, the very concept of a supernova writ large.   We also see black holes due to excessive mass.

The universe has always been here and always will be.  It is just constantly changing.

That we do not know.   In fact, modern science currently projects the universe will reach a heat death (no decrease in entropy possible thus no contraction ever).

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.3.2  SteevieGee  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.1    one month ago

Of course, ours is only one of gazillions of other universes, the depths of which are unfathomable. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago

Then again you could be wrong about all that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.4    4 weeks ago

... and you could be wrong about my possibly being wrong @2.   Platitude.

Got anything better than vague, pointless commentary 'Chris'?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.4.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.1    4 weeks ago

Sure but Odds are that you’re wrong when it comes to the unknown.

Anyway why would I need to offer you anything else since you already believe you have  it all figured out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.4.3  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.4.2    4 weeks ago
Sure but Odds are that you’re wrong when it comes to the unknown.

My post focused on what is known.    

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.4.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.3    4 weeks ago

 I disagree 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.4.5  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.4.4    4 weeks ago

Make your argument.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.4.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.5    4 weeks ago

 In my experience you would just say some derogatory thing in response so no reason to do that . 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.4.7  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.4.6    4 weeks ago

Irony

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.5  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago

Time to ‘get over Darwin’

SCIENCE | A Yale scientist denounces belief in Darwinian evolution by Julie Borg
Posted 8/22/19, 02:40 pm

Yale University computer science professor David Gelernter publicly turned his back on Darwin’s theory of evolution in a recent op-ed for the Claremont Review of Books . “Darwin has failed,” he declared.

Gelernter did not speak much of his Jewish religious ideology and fell short of wholeheartedly endorsing intelligent design, but he unequivocally stated that scientists should “get over Darwin and move on.”

Gelernter has believed in Darwinism since early childhood. But books like Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt and David Berlinski’s The Deniable Darwin made him realize the theory failed to explain the one thing Darwin set out to discover: the origin of species.

The Cambrian explosion and discoveries in molecular biology, a field that didn’t even exist in Darwin’s day, have dealt a death blow to Darwinian evolution, Gelernter wrote. The Cambrian explosion describes a period in the fossil record when a huge variety of animals suddenly appeared with no evidence of any predecessors. Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain those fossils. “Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged,” Gelernter wrote. “The incremental development of new species is largely not there.”

Molecular biology presents an even greater conundrum for evolutionists, he noted. Any genetic mutation capable of creating a new life form would need to alter a gene that acts early in the organism’s development and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on. But mutations on early, developmental genes kill an organism long before it can reproduce.

As an example, Gelernter cited the work of German geneticists and 1995 Nobel Prize winners Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus. The scientists attempted to induce macroevolution in fruit flies by introducing every genetic mutation they could think of. But every mutation they tried turned out to be a dead end, killing the fly long before it could mate.

Gelernter appeared on an episode of Uncommon Knowledge , the Hoover Institute’s current affairs program, in July with Meyer and Berlinski. The three discussed the inability of Darwinian evolution to explain the complexity of cells.

Evolutionists describe the origin of species as a bottom-up, undirected process in which life begins simply and then branches out into ever more complex forms.

“But, what we see in life—complex miniature machines, complex information processing systems, digital code—these are things that bear the hallmark of mind and they suggest a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach,” Meyer said. “I think we’re in a new day. … We are looking at life in light of our own high-tech digital computing technologies and realizing these systems bear all the hallmarks of design, so let’s start to look at life differently.”....https://world.wng.org/content/time_to_get_over_darwin

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Heartland American @2.5    4 weeks ago

It is interesting how many people accept Darwinian conclusions as unquestionable whereas when I looked into some of those scientific explanations and I find some things that are unexplainable by Darwin  and indeed not as definitive as one might otherwise believe 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.1    4 weeks ago
It is interesting how many people accept Darwinian conclusions as unquestionable

They've simply traded one religion for another.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.3  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @2.5    4 weeks ago

What does Darwin have to do with this topic?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.4  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.1    4 weeks ago
I looked into some of those scientific explanations and I find some things that are unexplainable by Darwin

You presume that Darwin answered all the questions of biology??

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.5  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.2    4 weeks ago

Modern biology is not a religion, correct?   The findings of science are based on evidence and are verifiable.   Unlike religion, the findings of science are not true (or even valid) simply because some authority said so.    

Accepting 'truth' on authority is religion, not science.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.4    4 weeks ago

 That’s not the right question 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.7  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.6    4 weeks ago

That's the wrong answer.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.7    4 weeks ago

 only answer you’re going to get 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.9  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.1    4 weeks ago

Darwin''s conclusions are scientifically sound and supported, with nothing to refute them. Darwin's ideas have only been reinforced over time. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.10  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.2    4 weeks ago

How is a scientific theory a religion exactly? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.11  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @2.5    4 weeks ago

How is a computer science professor an authority on evolution and biology exactly? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.12  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.5    4 weeks ago

Have you noticed that when someone equates science or a scientific theory to religion, it's clear they lack understanding of either science and/or the theory? They dismiss the science, but can never offer anything valid or credible to discredit it.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.5.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.10    4 weeks ago
How is a scientific theory a religion exactly? 

Evolution is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and careful evaluation of results.

Religion is based on some ancient men who said they had visions or heard voices and they or those around them wrote their visions down and then passed them on from one generation to the next and apparently no one reliable has had any visions or voices in their heads for nearly 2000 years. Plenty of people have had visions and heard voices, many people today have those, they're just completely unreliable and we usually lock those folk up and make sure they don't have access to firearms for both our and their safety.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
2.5.14  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Heartland American @2.5    4 weeks ago
Yale University computer science professor David Gelernter publicly turned his back on Darwin’s theory of evolution in a recent op-ed for the Claremont Review of Books . “Darwin has failed,” he declared.

Amazing how you always fixate on a handful of crackpots. As usual, this guy bases his argument on a number of incorrect assertions.

There are plenty of critical responses out there, if you'd ever bother to look for them. Here's one from an actual evolutionary biologist (one of my personal favorites), Jerry Coyne:

Computer scientist David Gelernter drinks the academic Kool-Aid, buys into intelligent design

David Gelenrter is a well known computer scientist at Yale, famous for his innovations in parallel computing, and is also a writer and artist. He’s a religious Jew, a conservative, and—as of two years ago— a denier of anthropogenic global warming , a view at odds with his scientific background.  In 1993 he was also badly injured in the hand and eye by a mail bomb sent by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber.

That was a horrible thing to happen to him, but it can neither explain nor excuse Gelenrter’s science denialism, now manifested in an article in the Claremont Review of Books in which Gelernter tells us that Darwinian evolution is dead, and that Intelligent Design is the happening thing. (Click on screenshot below.)  The article is being trumpeted all over Intelligent Design websites, and I’m baffled as to how someone of Gelernter’s intelligence could buy into thinly disguised creationism. Could it be his religion? I’d call him a “useful idiot” for the ID people, except he’s not an idiot.

My only explanation involves paraphrasing Steven Weinberg : “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have smart people doing smart things and stupid people doing stupid things. But for smart people to do stupid things, that takes religion. [...]”

It's too long to post here in full, so read the rest of it here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.15  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.12    4 weeks ago

Sometimes it is willful.   And that just kills me.   Why pretend obtuseness ... I would be embarrassed to use that tactic.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
2.5.16  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.1    4 weeks ago
It is interesting how many people accept Darwinian conclusions as unquestionable 

What's really interesting is how many people latch onto crackpot sensationalism and assume it somehow overturns very well-established evolutionary science, with much of it (namely, the underlying genetic mechanisms for evolution) being completely observable and verifiable in real-time.

whereas when I looked into some of those scientific explanations and I find some things that are unexplainable by Darwin  and indeed not as definitive as one might otherwise believe

By Darwin or by modern evolutionary biology? We know a lot more today than Darwin did in his time.

What are you having a hard time with? It's possible I could help.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.17  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.5.13    4 weeks ago

That about sums it all up.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.18  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.15    4 weeks ago

Maybe some people don't know well enough to be embarrassed?  Or they just don't care. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.9    4 weeks ago

WTF!   You're way out of touch if you believe that.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.20  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @2.5.16    4 weeks ago

Better do some more research.

And by the way. I can help myself, unlike a long list of folks who can't seem help themselves from asking questions seemingly drawn from the well of ignorance.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.21  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.12    4 weeks ago

When people make statements like that then it's easy to see how someone might characterize them as havng a religious component.  THe notion of projecting the infallibility of science or at least the labeling of something as science when it is notably flawed. Couple that with the idea that you can deem a contradiction as invalid or lacking credibility as you choose and you would actually demonstrate a true lack of understanding of scientific theories and in this case more precisely a misunderstanding of how the term is being applied.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
2.5.22  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.20    4 weeks ago
Better do some more research.

About what, though? What aspect(s) of evolutionary science do you reject?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.23  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.19    4 weeks ago
WTF!   You're way out of touch if you believe that.

How so? Has the scientific community provided evidence to refute the validity of Darwin's findings or evolution? BTW, i don't go by belief.

When people make statements like that then it's easy to see how someone might characterize them as havng a religious component.

Many people cite religious belief as the reason for their dismissal of established facts and science. I've even had people tell me they don't care what science says, they prefer their beliefs and what their religion says. So my statement is sound and stands!

THe notion of projecting the infallibility of science or at least the labeling of something as science when it is notably flawed.

No one ever said science was infallible or didn't have flaws. So I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

Couple that with the idea that you can deem a contradiction as invalid or lacking credibility as you choose and you would actually demonstrate a true lack of understanding of scientific theories and in this case more precisely a misunderstanding of how the term is being applied.

I am fully aware of the term scientific theory and how it's applied. Contradictions logically diminish the validity of ideas or claims made. Science is no exception. But the strength and validity of any scientific theory is dependent on the evidence to support it. Science goes where the evidence leads.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.5.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.23    4 weeks ago
How so? Has the scientific community provided evidence to refute the validity of Darwin's findings or evolution?

Some of those in the ID communities seized on a book a few years ago that they claimed showed that Darwin was wrong. Here's what was actually said in an interview with the author of that book:

"A 2009 headline in the British magazine New Scientist said “Darwin was wrong” and was immediately seized upon by creationists. Explain the issues and how the latest science is rewriting the idea of natural selection." - Simon Worrall

"It’s not rewriting the idea of natural selection. Rather, it’s rewriting our understanding of evolution, of which natural selection is still a very important part. There are two phases in classic Darwinian evolution. First, there is the arising of variations from one creature to another or one individual population to another. That was thought to occur incrementally, in very slow stages, by mutations in the genome. Once there are variations among individuals, natural selection, the survival of the fittest, acts upon those variations.

What is new, and caused New Scientist to run that over-stated and provocative headline, “Darwin Was Wrong,” is that we now understand there is another, hugely significant form of variation. It’s not just incremental mutation, but horizontal gene transfer, bringing entirely new packages of DNA into genomes.

One of the axioms in Darwin’s day, natura non facit saltus , which your good Latin training [laughs] will tell you means nature does not make leaps; things happen incrementally. But horizontal gene transfer has revealed that nature does sometimes make leaps, whereby huge lumps of DNA can appear in an individual or population quite suddenly and then natural selection acts on them . That can be a very important mechanism in the evolution of new species." - David Quammen

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news/

So no, Darwin wasn't really "wrong", he just didn't have access to the rest of the data so was unable to expand upon his theories as we are able to do today. He believed all evolution was a slow process of incremental variations being acted on by natural selection whereas science has proven that evolution can in fact occur much more quickly, making those "leaps" Darwin assumed were improbable. We now have a much deeper understanding of evolution than when Darwin first proposed his novel ideas, but the core of his observance and theories on evolution are actually proven even more valid by the data.

The evolution deniers simply like to seize on anything they see as an error in scientific theories, even when the "error" seems to prove other evolutionary theories. Their main goal is to be able to say "Well, it's not all set in stone yet, therefore "God!". Just like with radiocarbon dating, because it has a "margin of error", that's enough for a YEC to proclaim that if the dates could be off by several thousand years, then that means the age of the earth might be 9,000 instead of over 4 billion. It's a completely dishonest defense of their fantasy, but it's all they have.

Scientific theory and science in general begs to be challenged, it asks to be proved wrong. It wants others to check the data and if there's an error it is more than happy to update the theory to reflect the best understanding of the observations and testing. It is basically the complete opposite of religion and faith that requires suspending your disbelief and overcoming any logical roadblocks by just wanting to believe more, to have a deeper faith instead of coming to a new understanding.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.25  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.5.24    4 weeks ago

You are correct. No one has ever brought any significant challenge to evolution, much less discredit it in the slightest or propose a better scientific theory. And "god did it" is not a scientific theory. It's religious based emotionally appealing nonsense with zero empirical evidence. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.26  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.5    4 weeks ago
Accepting 'truth' on authority is religion, not science.

Yes.  Which, sadly, happens frequently when it comes to Darwin.

Darwin's work was incredibly important, but treating it like it's inerrant is as ignorant as treating it like it's valueless.

It's interesting.  It's as though people are still fighting the Scopes Trial, and perceive any challenge to Darwin as defense of the flat earth and 144 hour creationism.  It's like the options are Darwin or Jonathan Edwards.  

The comical part A is that the people who attack Darwin the most aggressively have almost never read his work.  The comical part B is that the same is true of those who defend him most aggressively.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.27  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.26    4 weeks ago
Darwin's work was incredibly important, but treating it like it's inerrant is as ignorant as treating it like it's valueless.

Darwin only had his observations at the time. But as technology and scientific understanding progressed, his observations, and his theory, has only been supported and reinforced. Those who support Darwin have empirical evidence on their side. Those who don't support him or otherwise dismiss him, have nothing to challenge him or the validity of the science! Darwin's ideas and evolutionary theory itself, is accepted not because of Darwin himself, but because of the evidence which supports him, and the lack of evidence to discredit him. That's how science operates.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.5.28  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.17    4 weeks ago

Yup, Darwin, Freud & Marx

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.29  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.5.28    4 weeks ago
Yup, Darwin, Freud & Marx

Is that supposed to be some kind of rebuttal? Or just a meaningless post which contributes nothing to the discussion?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.5.30  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.29    4 weeks ago

No, Just thinking out loud. Thinking of those who have been so influential in modern times. I happen to agree with what you said about Darwin.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.31  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.5.30    4 weeks ago

Ok then. Darwin was quite influential in the biological sciences over the years. And for good reason.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.5.32  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.31    4 weeks ago

As you said in 2.5.27 - A theory later proved correct. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.33  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.27    4 weeks ago
Darwin only had his observations at the time.

Of course.

But as technology and scientific understanding progressed, his observations, and his theory, has only been supported and reinforced.

Yes and no.   

Those who support Darwin have empirical evidence on their side. Those who don't support him or otherwise dismiss him, have nothing to challenge him or the validity of the science!

This binary nonsense of "support" or "dismiss" is the religious ferver I'm talking about.  Religions are binary.  Heaven or hell.  Good or evil.  Support or dismiss.

Why would those be the only options?  Real life and especially nature are usually more complicated than that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.34  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.33    4 weeks ago
This binary nonsense of "support" or "dismiss" is the religious ferver I'm talking about.  Religions are binary.  Heaven or hell.  Good or evil.  Support or dismiss.

Science isn't religion. Its theories and conclusions, as well as their validity, is based on the evidence presented. Evidence can either support a theory, or discredit it.

Yes and no.

What's the "no?"

Why would those be the only options?

What other options are there? Science goes where the evidence leads. Not where one wants it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.35  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.26    4 weeks ago
Darwin's work was incredibly important, but treating it like it's inerrant is as ignorant as treating it like it's valueless.

Who is treating Darwin's work (by that I assume you mean the work of the man himself) as inerrant?   Darwin's genius was to recognize evolution by natural selection.   That was the beginning of evolutionary science.   

By the way, nobody that I see has suggested that evolutionary science is inerrant.   Mistakes (and dishonesty) appears in all scientific disciplines because human beings are involved.   

So while I agree with you that no scientist and no discipline of science is inerrant, I do not see who is claiming otherwise.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.36  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.5.32    4 weeks ago
A theory later proved correct. 

I would suggest a rephrasing because no theory of empirical science can be proved correct by definition.

The highest level of a theory of empirical science is 'high confidence'.   Evolution has been so fully corroborated (by multiple disciplines even) that worldwide science in general is as confident that it is generally correct as it is about the heliocentric model.

So it is a theory that has continued to hold up to scrutiny and is supported by mountains of evidence.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.37  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.23    4 weeks ago
Has the scientific community provided evidence to refute the validity of Darwin's findings or evolution?

Yes in part. 

No one ever said science was infallible or didn't have flaws.

No one?  You aren't paying close enough attention.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.38  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.37    4 weeks ago

I would add that one needs to be wary of the pride that goes along with that sort of intellectual presupposition noting it's similarities to the attitudes that spawed totalitarian  states of the 20th century.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.39  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.37    4 weeks ago
No one ever said science was infallible or didn't have flaws.
No one?  You aren't paying close enough attention.

This is a phenomenon that's not exclusive to the right... but far more prevalent than on the data-oriented left.

I'm guessing that you really do "remember" having read people saying Darwin is flawless. And I'm equally sure you have never in fact read any such thing.

You are substituting imaginary memories for what is real... and the attacking on that basis.

If you don't mind posting utter nonsense, such as "some say Darwin is flawless", then you can just carry on.

If you'd prefer to not appear so foolish... you must be concrete. Force yourself to produce links, citations... proof. If you cannot supply evidence, as would be the case here, you can abstain from posting... and looking foolish.

If you continue like this... we'll all just sigh, "Freedom Warrior is makin' shit up again".

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.40  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.38    4 weeks ago
I would add that one needs to be wary of the pride that goes along with that sort of intellectual presupposition noting it's similarities to the attitudes that spawned totalitarian  states of the 20th century.

Were you born knowing how to do multiplication? No. You learned. A great portion of what we "know" is in fact "what we have been taught". I've never seen an atom, but I "know" they exist, because I have been taught about atoms.

Unfortunately, we sometimes learn stuff that is not true.

This is the problem of choosing our "trusted sources", the sources we will tend to accept as "true".

There are various standards for choosing such a source:
 - it tells me what I already know, giving me the satisfaction of "being right", or
 - it tells me what the data prove, regardless of anyone's opinion,
 - my friends recommend it.

The choice is yours.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.26    4 weeks ago

Nobody is treating it as if it's inerrant, Jack.  See DP's post above. Darwin thought evolution was necessarily a slow process.  Nobody just accepted that as true - they showed that evolution can sometimes occur quickly.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.42  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.40    4 weeks ago

So?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.43  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.42    4 weeks ago

So every once in a while, I try reasoning with one of you.

It's always fruitless.

But I'm an eternal optimist, so I keep trying.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.44  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.39    4 weeks ago
Force yourself to produce links, citations... proof.

It is much safer to make a vague comment and then exit the building.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.45  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.44    4 weeks ago

      jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.46  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.37    4 weeks ago

What scientific findings or evidence refutes evolution?  I'm sure the scientific community would be most interested in that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.47  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.41    4 weeks ago
Nobody is treating it as if it's inerrant, Jack. 

Really?  Float the phrase "Darwin was wrong" and see what reaction you get.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.47    4 weeks ago

We've already covered that right here in this conversation.  Just saying that Darwin is wrong with no evidence to support that statement, and with a great deal of evidence to support that Darwin was right, will naturally and rightly give rise to protest.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.49  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.47    4 weeks ago

Wrong about what, exactly? Where is the evidence that shows Darwin was wrong? He certainly wasn't wrong about evolution itself.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.50  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.47    4 weeks ago
Really?  Float the phrase "Darwin was wrong"

I really don't understand you, Jack.

You certainly are not a fool, and yet you conflate "Darwin was right" and "Darwin was inerrant".

Why do you do stuff like this, that you know is is foolish?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.51  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.46    4 weeks ago

If you are not aware of the research in this field then why are you acting as if you know everything.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.52  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.51    4 weeks ago

Gordy asked you to back up your claim:

Gordy @2.5.23 ⇨ Has the scientific community provided evidence to refute the validity of Darwin's findings or evolution?

FW @2.5.37 ⇨ Yes in part

Gordy @2.5.46What scientific findings or evidence refutes evolution?  I'm sure the scientific community would be most interested in that.

FW @2.5.51 ⇨ If you are not aware of the research in this field then why are you acting as if you know everything.

A non-answer delivered via insult.   

You hold that the scientific community has in part refuted the validity of Darwin's findings or evolution in general.   Gordy asked you to name the scientific findings or evidence that refutes evolution.

What scientific findings/evidence do you have in mind that (in part) refutes biochemical evolution?   

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.53  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.51    4 weeks ago

When did I say I know everything? You made a claim so I asked you to back it up. Instead, you deflect. If you have research to support your claim, then cite it! But since you seem unwilling or unable to back up your claim, I have to assume it's just BS then!

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.54  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.53    4 weeks ago
I have to assume it's just BS then!

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.55  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.53    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.56  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.55    3 weeks ago

Of course you don't.  And of course, your comments will be dismissed as having as little worth.  Same old same old.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.57  Freedom Warrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.56    3 weeks ago

It really doesn't fucking matter.  Most of those comments in response to mine are of no value.  BFD!  Do you seriously think any of this matters? To whom could it possibly matter?

The only thing that matters is if you and the rest of the bunch actually took some action to do some research on the topic and began to understand the basis for my comments.

Everything else is irrelevant.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.58  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.57    3 weeks ago

It's your job to show that you understand the basis for your comments, and demonstrate that they have any value, not ours.  You either can't or won't, and your contributions are judged based on that lack.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.59  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.58    3 weeks ago

The responses @ 2.5.55 and @ 2.5.57 were as most of us would predict.    jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

No information, just vague commentary delivered with arrogant negativity.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.60  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.48    3 weeks ago
We've already covered that right here in this conversation.  Just saying that Darwin is wrong with no evidence to support that statement, and with a great deal of evidence to support that Darwin was right, will naturally and rightly give rise to protest.

The point is it shouldn't.  Intelligent, well educated people ought to understand that all scientific advancement is hit and miss.  They get some things right and some things wrong, and continually refine and challenge along the way. 

The only reason to "protest" about someone saying Darwin might have been wrong is pre-programmed opposition to religious ideas that have sought to suppress Darwin's work.

It's like we're determined to re-live Inherit the Wind for the rest of eternity.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.61  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.49    3 weeks ago
Wrong about what, exactly? Where is the evidence that shows Darwin was wrong? He certainly wasn't wrong about evolution itself.

He was partially wrong, certainly. 

Darwin was a starting point.  His work started us on a new path about how we look at the development of life on earth.

But he had no knowledge of DNA.  Limited knowledge of chemistry.  Viruses weren't even discovered until after his death.  He had no inkling of the myriad of additional external factors that can influence DNA and cellular structure and therefore no way of working them into his theories.

Here, have a read.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.62  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.5.50    3 weeks ago
I really don't understand you, Jack.

I know.

You certainly are not a fool, and yet you conflate "Darwin was right" and "Darwin was inerrant".

No.  If you're reading carefully you'll note that I'm accusing other people of doing that. 

Why do you do stuff like this, that you know is is foolish?

It is foolish.  Which is why I'm objecting to it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.60    3 weeks ago

Unfounded statements in the face of evidence to the contrary shouldn't give rise to protest? 

Ok.

It's not the statement itself to which we object, Jack.  It's making the statement without supporting evidence that's objectionable.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.64  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.63    3 weeks ago
Unfounded statements in the face of evidence to the contrary shouldn't give rise to protest? 

They're not unfounded.  They're axiomatic.  

Darwin was right about some things, and wrong about some things.  That cannot be more self evident.

It's not the statement itself to which we object, Jack.  It's making the statement without supporting evidence that's objectionable.

You object to a statement you cannot cogently dispute about a scientific work you've not actually read?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.65  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.60    3 weeks ago
The only reason to "protest" about someone saying Darwin might have been wrong is pre-programmed opposition to religious ideas that have sought to suppress Darwin's work.

I have found that (for the most part) those who assert that Darwin was wrong (no matter how they qualify it) are effectively trying to downplay the evolutionary sciences.   The old 'but it is only a theory' routine.   After all, most people do know that science is an iterative process that trends towards higher accuracy over time but certainly makes mistakes along the way.   There is no reason to note that Darwin made mistakes or that his original work (especially his musings) was imperfect except as a rather lame attempt to discredit 'Darwinism'.

That said, Darwin was right in his brilliant breakthrough — a sound scientific explanation for the origin of species.   His out-of-the-box thinking illuminated the path for his successors to produce a multi-disciplinary branch of science that today is one of the most highly corroborated, accurate scientific explanations we have.   So if I am going to provide an abstract, unqualified, simple summary for Darwin, I would say:  'Darwin was right'.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.66  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.65    3 weeks ago
I have found that (for the most part) those who assert that Darwin was wrong (no matter how they qualify it) are effectively trying to downplay the evolutionary sciences.   The old 'but it is only a theory' routine.

Yup. Those who say "Darwin is wrong" are generally referring to the theory of evolution in general, not specific details of it.

To Jack:  As I said before, we have already noted that Darwin is wrong in some of the details (such as the speed at which evolution can occur).  I'm really not sure how that equates to us considering Darwin to be inerrant.  Would you feel better if we throw out the baby with the bathwater?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.5.67  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.66    3 weeks ago

What if you just say Darwin was wrong on some of theories and Jack is actually right and leave the baby and the bath water where they lie. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.68  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.5.67    3 weeks ago

I'd say that you need to be specific about what you claim he was wrong about, and make sure you're using "theories" correctly.

To say that "Darwin was wrong" without being more specific is, well, wrong.  Or at the very least unsupported.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.5.69  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.68    3 weeks ago

Are you trying to say Darwin was 100% correct in all his theories or is Jack Right where he said with out DNA testing and other modern scientific methods some of his theories are wrong? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.70  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.5.69    3 weeks ago

I've already answered this above.  Try reading.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.5.71  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.70    3 weeks ago

I just want a answer to my question and right now would be nicejrSmiley_42_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.5.72  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.5.71    3 weeks ago

You'd be less frustrated if you scroll up just a few short inches to @2.5.66 and read, rather than waste your time asking questions which have already been answered just a few inches above your post.  Not sure what's so hard about reading a portion of the discussion that's so recent.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.73  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.55    3 weeks ago

I asked you to cite the research. If you can't do that, then your claim is BS!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.5.74  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.65    3 weeks ago
After all, most people do know that science is an iterative process

I think you're being generous.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.75  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.74    3 weeks ago

Probably so.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.76  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.73    3 weeks ago

You still talking to that empty chair, buddy?  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.5.77  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.62    3 weeks ago
I'm accusing other people of doing that.

... without citing any specific cases.

If you cannot cite anyone, then it is only you who are inventing shit.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.78  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.73    3 weeks ago

The problem here is you don't know what I know. 

I know what I know.

This idea that I should do whatever you want me to do is simply crazy.  That's what's truly BS!

If you can't handle the research on your own just admit it and move on.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.79  Freedom Warrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.58    3 weeks ago

I don't have a job here and it should be abundantly clear by now that comments such as yours are of absolutely no value to me.

I know what I know. Either you take it upon yourself to understand the essentials of the topic being discussed or find someone else to assist you.  That goes for the rest of the gang. Your problems are not my problem.  

Hello Daddy Hello Mom I'm Your Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch Cherry Bomb

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.80  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.78    3 weeks ago

You made a claim.   You were challenged to back it up.   You repeatedly refused to do so and chose instead to make cliche excuses.  

Who now would take your claim as anything more than bullshit?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.81  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.78    3 weeks ago

The problem here is you make claims and then make excuses to avoid challenges to your claims! Then you try to get personal about it, which only further shows how weak your argument, such as it is, really is! I don't really care about what you think you know, nor am I impressed. I care about whether you can back up your assertions with evidence or research. Clearly you cant!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.5.82  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @2.5.71    3 weeks ago
I just want a answer to my question Are you trying to say Darwin was 100% correct in all his theories or is Jack Right where he said with out DNA testing and other modern scientific methods some of his theories are wrong?

Considering the fact that Darwin didn't claim to know 100% about evolution, trying to claim he or anyone here was trying to say he was "100% correct in all his theories" is nothing but a straw man argument.

The basics of his theory of evolution have been proved correct so far. All science has done since then is add to our understanding of evolution. If you can think of it like a treasure hunter discovering the wreck of a galleon where he recovers 10,000 gold doubloons and he announces to the world that the Galleon discovered held 10,000 gold coins. Then, after the treasure hunters death new treasure hunters discover a hidden cache of another 10,000 doubloons in the same Galleon. Does that lessen the discovery of the first treasure hunter? Of course not, his discovery is still incredibly valuable, we've just now added to that treasure with more discoveries and can now say that Galleon contained 20,000 gold coins. Was the first treasure hunter wrong? Of course not, that Galleon did in fact have 10,000 gold coins just as he stated, but now that the evidence has become clearer we know that it actually contained even more than he expected. Of course those desperately trying to discredit the original treasure hunter would no doubt print the headline "Treasure Hunter Blows It! Claim of 10,000 coins wrong!" but that just shows what whiny little jealous fuck wads they are gnashing their teeth because they were the ones who originally predicted the wreck would be empty.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.83  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.5.82    3 weeks ago

Good analogy.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.84  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.81    3 weeks ago

That's false and there is no logic to such a conclusion.  There are plenty of reasons why I don't care to play monkey to your organ grinder. That doesn't prove anything clearly or otherwise. Statements like that are unscientific and if I adopted your approach to this topic would mean that you are incapable of doing any of the research necessary to understand my comments.

Just because you want to proclaim something BS doesn't make it so.  The only thing that we have established so far is that you appear to disagree with my comments. BFD!

Meanwhile, we know for a fact that there are those in the scientific community that no longer regard Darwinian Evolution as a probably scientific theory.   We also know there is essentially a cult like adherence to the support of Darwin.  Several comments here support that conclusion.

Those are the facts in play here. Better you just move on from the SeaLioning thingy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.85  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.84    3 weeks ago
Meanwhile, we know for a fact that there are those in the scientific community that no longer regard Darwinian Evolution as a probably scientific theory.   We also know there is essentially a cult like adherence to the support of Darwin.  Several comments here support that conclusion.

Good grief man, science is not based on opinions of scientists;  it is based on evidence and explanations that survive scrutiny.   The fact that you think evolution by natural selection is cultish explains why you have delivered nothing to backup your claim.   You have nothing to offer other than bullshit.

It is funny observing the level of effort you have expended with excuses and more vague claims when you could have used that to explain your original claim and maybe add something to the discussion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.86  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.84    3 weeks ago

You made an assertion and I asked you to support that assertion. That's it. The fact that you have continuously avoided doing so, and continue making empty claims, while becoming increasingly defensive, personal, and deflective about it only proves my point! Clearly I'm not the only one who noticed either. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.87  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.86    3 weeks ago

The most recent assertion is quite revealing:

FW @ 2.5.84 Meanwhile, we know for a fact that there are those in the scientific community that no longer regard Darwinian Evolution as a probably scientific theory.   We also know there is essentially a cult like adherence to the support of Darwin.

Amazing is it not?   A tiny few in the worldwide scientific community do not consider evolution to be a 'probable' scientific theory.   Indeed, Ken Ham tends to hire those scientists whose religious views override the obvious findings of science to promote his Young Earth Creationist nonsense.  Yet the balance of scientists on the planet (virtually everyone) who accept the overwhelming multidisciplinary evidence of evolution are a 'cult'.

3904932487_54cce78f13.jpg

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.88  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.87    3 weeks ago

Amazing isn't the term I'd use.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.89  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.88    3 weeks ago

I have a few other words I could use.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.90  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.89    3 weeks ago

They would probably be more apt and accurate than "amazing." Lol

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.91  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.90    3 weeks ago

In the meantime, do not hold your breath.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.92  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.91    3 weeks ago

Wasn't planning on it

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.93  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.86    3 weeks ago

You haven't proven anything except you are unwilling to accept the facts of the situation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.94  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.93    3 weeks ago

Gordy did not have to prove his point, you did it for him and continue to do so.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.95  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.93    3 weeks ago
You haven't proven anything except you are unwilling to accept the facts of the situation.

I've proven that you have no facts, just empty assertions, which you continuously fail to support when challenged. I've proven that all you do is deflect, engage in intellectual dishonesty, and get personal when challenged. Your own replies proves me correct, and you don't even seem to realize it, as you continue to repeat the same pattern.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.96  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.95    3 weeks ago
I've proven that you have no facts,

That's absurd of course.  You say you challenged me to support my comments. So what!  I challenged you to do some research to understand my comments.  Take it or leave it, it really is of no consequence to me.  For some, who knows what bug is up their azz.

As far as personal, I've avoided getting personal although it would help explain why I have no intention to acquiesce to any of your demands which you illogically choose to use as a basis to make personally derogatory and blatantly false conclusions.

But back to the issue at hand. I do my own research on the various topics presented.  I draw from a variety of souces, assimilating, processing and analyzing the information as I go, which then use that as the basis for my comments here. I expect many others do the same.  I don't require anything of them.  Not unlike when I'm discussing things with people at lunch or around the fire ring at the beach.

And so it goes. I have a policy which I follow. As such I will continue to swat these flies that continue to hover around the rotting carcass of your attack on me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.97  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.96    3 weeks ago
I have a policy which I follow.

Here is a simple 'policy' that most people already follow:   If one makes a claim, one should be willing to back up the claim if challenged.   

Anyone can run about making claims.   Talk is cheap, right?    Those who can defend their claims have something of value to offer.   Those who cannot are simply spewing bullshit.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.98  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.96    3 weeks ago
That's absurd of course.  You say you challenged me to support my comments. So what!  I challenged you to do some research to understand my comments.  

You made the claim, So you bear the burden of backing it up. Otherwise, your claim is without merit and you lack all credibility.

As far as personal, I've avoided getting personal

Except you have.

it would help explain why I have no intention to acquiesce to any of your demands which you illogically choose to use as a basis to make personally derogatory and blatantly false conclusions.

Logic seems to elude you then! By all means, point out these derogatory or false conclusions! I already explained how I reached my conclusions.

I do my own research on the various topics presented. I draw from a variety of souces, assimilating, processing and analyzing the information as I go, which then use that as the basis for my comments here.

Yet you cite nothing of credible value or relevance to support yourself or your claims. So all you're really offering is your own opinions at best.

I have a policy which I follow. As such I will continue to swat these flies that continue to hover around the rotting carcass of your attack on me.

Your policy seems to be spewing BS and unsubstantiated assertions, while showing your lack of credibility at the same time. Seems like a poor policy to me.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.99  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Gordy327 @2.5.98    3 weeks ago

There is no burden that you can place on me nor I can place on you. That’s a fact. The sooner you realize that the better. 

You say I don’t have sufficient credibility while I know you have none with me. Neither positions are “proof” of anything else.

 If you were so concerned about the credibility of my comments then why wouldn’t you take the time to do the proper research?  You can’t possibly believe that that no one out there that aligns themselves with my position on Darwin. I can assure you that I did not  arrive at such conclusions without foundation. To deny that fact would fully support my attitude on this entire discourse and the credibility matter. 

Yet you persist to pursue your illogical conclusions while projecting your inadequacies on to me.  Which leaves the question what are you really afraid of given that this is such a trivial matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.100  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.99    3 weeks ago
You can’t possibly believe that that no one out there that aligns themselves with my position on Darwin.

Of course there are fringe elements out there that agree with your opinion.   There are flat Earthers out there too.   Arguing that there is at least one person on the planet who agrees with you is probably the most laughable attempt at corroboration I have observed.

Deliver facts, not bullshit.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.5.101  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.100    3 weeks ago

BS is all he has and has spewed. Certainly no "research," or anything of value.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.5.102  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.3    3 weeks ago

The question of what caused origins out of what was there before the beginning?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.5.103  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.56    3 weeks ago

Nothing us conservatives say is considered of any value to secular progressives. Whenever a conservative’s comment is challenged and deleted as “no value” the rest of us conservatives realize that the conservative got in a point the secular progressive doesn’t like and that it was of good value.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.5.104  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.57    3 weeks ago

Well said. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.5.105  Heartland American  replied to  Jack_TX @2.5.64    3 weeks ago

The secular progressive way!jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.5.106  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.99    3 weeks ago

Bravo! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif Awesome post and right on in every way.  Well said. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.5.107  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @2.5.102    3 weeks ago
The question of what caused origins out of what was there before the beginning?  

Kathleen raised a question about the origin of the universe:

What do you think existed before the universe was created?

Darwin focused on the origin of species.  Not even the origin of life, the origin of species .   And thus he did not consider the origin of life, origin of the planet, solar system, galaxy or universe.   You are totally off base bringing in Darwin.

In short, yours is a profound misunderstanding of Darwin's work.

What is most bizarre is that I know for a fact that this has been explained to you many times here on NT.   Yet you still get it wrong.   And worse, a simple Google search would deliver tons of information on Darwin and biochemical evolution in general.   Simple to complex explanations with tons of supporting details.   So easy for you to understand that Darwin had nothing to say about the origin of the universe.    Yet, still, here you are getting it all wrong about Darwin.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Here is an article by the Christian organization biologos which explains what Darwin did.   These are Christians who are also scientists (not evil atheists who are channeling Satan).   

How Darwin Developed His Theory

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3  dave-2693993    one month ago

The singularity. Before that, the components of the singularity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  dave-2693993 @3    one month ago

Exactly.  The components of the singularity and any other forms that exist based on those components (allowing the possibility that our known universe is not necessarily the only form).

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4  Bob Nelson    one month ago
Could there have been something there?

Dunno.

There are two possibilities:
- There was nothing. This implies that all the mass/energy of the universe appeared explosively... from nothing...
 - There was something, with all the mass/energy of the universe, that suddenly "exploded" into the universe.

I suspect that except for a (perhaps) few high-powered cosmologists, we simply do not have the semantic means for talking about "before time began" or "when the universe was a single point"...

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    one month ago
There was nothing. This implies that all the mass/energy of the universe appeared explosively... from nothing...

Does that not contradict the meaning of 'nothing'?   If nothing is absence — total void — from what would something emerge?

When physicists speak of 'nothing' they are often referring to a net-zero energy state.   If a particle and an anti-particle arise from 'nothing' that 'nothing' is actually something.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5  Bob Nelson    one month ago
Does that not contradict the meaning of 'nothing'?

Dunno. I'm not at all sure if that's a cosmological topic or a semantic topic. And I don't know the answer in either case.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    one month ago

Welcome back Bob, I missed you. What have you been up to?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    one month ago

Reflecting on the meaning of life...

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.1    one month ago
Reflecting on the meaning of life...

Happiness and continuation of future life that can also achieve happiness.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    one month ago
And I don't know the answer in either case.

Well when I use the word 'nothing' in existential discussions I am referring to the complete absence of something: non-existence.   And from that perspective, if non-existence is everything then non-existence would continue in perpetuity.   The fact that existence demonstrable IS convinces me that existence has always BEEN (and will always BE).

The interesting question for me is what is the substance of existence — the lowest level quintessential existence — that which is part of everything that exists.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    one month ago
And from that perspective, if non-existence is everything then non-existence would continue in perpetuity.

That's assuming that the laws of thermodynamics operate "as usual" on the other side of the singularity. I'm not sure that's valid.

The Big Bang assumes that all of the mass/energy of the universe was once a dimensionless point. That's weird. It's not much weirder to imagine something from nothing...

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.1    one month ago
That's assuming that the laws of thermodynamics operate "as usual" on the other side of the singularity.

I make no such assumption.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.1    one month ago
It's not much weirder to imagine something from nothing...

Something from nothing is a logical contradiction and is thus impossible.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.3    one month ago
Something from nothing is a logical contradiction and is thus impossible.

That's a semantic argument, lot a logical one. I did not intend any kind of causality.

Let's try "One instant there is nothing and the next instant there is something."

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.2    one month ago
I make no such assumption.

If you do not assume conservation, then anything goes...

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.5    one month ago

I make no assumptions.   We know existence IS.   We know things form that necessarily are ultimately of the most basic substance of existence.   We know that since existence does not emerge from non-existence (by definition) then existence itself is eternal.

We do not know what this quintessential substance of existence is (that is, what comprises energy?).   But it appears to be recycled in an eternal dance of forms.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.6    one month ago
We know that since existence does not emerge from non-existence (by definition)

That's circular.

We know existence IS.

That's not the topic. We do not know that existence always has been.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.2.8  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.6    one month ago

Makes you wonder about consciousness. That is the thing that makes all of us aware of the universe. Pretty amazing that a mass of tissue can produce this.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.4    one month ago
Let's try "One instant there is nothing and the next instant there is something."

What does 'there is nothing' mean?   It reads as though 'nothing' can exist.   As though 'nothing' is a placeholder for a future 'something'.

Nothing = non-existence.   The word itself is simply a label for an abstract idea of our making.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.7    one month ago
That's circular.

Circular like:  open vs. closed, left vs. right, forward vs. backward?   Existence and non-existence are opposites.

... not the topic ...

Nevermind Bob.   If you are going to surgically pick out a part of my on-topic argument and deem it off topic, it is pointless to continue.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @5.2.8    one month ago

That is a great topic for another article.   Consciousness is a great mystery.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.2.12  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.11    one month ago

Yeah..... that could be next.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6  author  Kathleen    one month ago

You know something...

When I was little, I asked my grandmother this question. She was always level headed about most things. I don’t remember her exact words, but this is pretty close.

She said, if you are in a black room with nothing in it. Chances are it will always be that way.  Something, had to be existing to begin with to start that big explosion. To make all the elements that make up the universe.  

I never forgot it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @6    one month ago
Something, had to be existing to begin with to start that big explosion. To make all the elements that make up the universe.  

The universe itself may have been compressed into a singularity which "exploded," this causing the Big bang and the formation of the universe.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1    one month ago
The universe itself may have been compressed into a singularity which "exploded," this causing the Big bang and the formation of the universe.

Are you using this definition of singularity?

physics
mathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    one month ago

I'm assuming you have some point to make.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.2    one month ago

Yes, my point, as clearly evidenced by my question, is what definition of singularity are you using?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.3    one month ago

The scientific definition. What else would I use?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.4    one month ago

Okay.

Then I do have a question, and I think this is somewhat the seeder had in mind.

What created the singularity?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    one month ago

Unknown. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.6    one month ago

That's what I figured.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.1.8  author  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    one month ago

Yes, that was my next question. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.7    one month ago

Unknown is the correct answer.

When someone states that they know what 'created' the singularity they are making a claim that they cannot possibly support.   One can speculate (based on modern physics or logic) but claiming certain knowledge such as "created by an eternal God" is akin to ancient men attributing volcanic activity to an angry god Vulcan.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

My answer?  vacuum.

However, with a Sci-Fi mind, I used to like to conjecture that our suns are merely nuclei and electrons as planets making up a much huger reality, and all things in our universe, including life forms, consist of similar infinitely smaller nuclei encircled by electrons - i.e. to infinity in both directions.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8  JohnRussell    one month ago

We tend to think of God, those of us who believe in it, as a much better version of the best person who we have ever known. In other words we relate to God in human terms because, ..... what choice do we have?  But I'm afraid that if God exists, it's "plans" are beyond our understanding. 

Material existence as we know it may be God at play, or God expressing itself. The truth is we will never know why things what they are. Science cannot give that answer either.  Describing what may have been physically happening as this existence came into being would prove exactly what? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
9  author  Kathleen    one month ago

Okay folks, going to lock for the night and re-open tomorrow.

Good night all.

 
 
 
luther28
10  luther28    one month ago

I would have to say the great nothingness of nothing, as others have opined, a void. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1  author  Kathleen  replied to  luther28 @10    one month ago

That’s a possibility too.

It really makes you think. I think nothingness is scary for many people though.