Theist... G!d exists
Atheist...G!d does not exist.
Agnostic...I don't know, I need more proof.
Who has the open mind?
Atheist...G!d does not exist.
Agnostic...I don't know, I need more proof.
Who has the open mind?
And it comes back to what I've said before, that it is correct for science to question the idea that 'God did it' -- because there'd be no science otherwise.
But it has moved away from that now to being absolutely closed to even the possibility of 'God' -- celebrity scientists crusading and printing tee-shirts mocking and deriding the very idea of 'God' -- and ending up twisting into such crazy shapes to avoid it, that they end up with something like the anthropic principle as an explanation.
But it has moved away from that now to being absolutely closed to even the possibility of 'God' -- celebrity scientists crusading and printing tee-shirts mocking and deriding the very idea of 'God' -- and ending up twisting into such crazy shapes to avoid it, that they end up with something like the anthropic principle as an explanation.
Last edited:
Just to briefly explain more about this model picture with the north pole. If you think of time as an arrow drawn on a piece of paper, then this arrow will have a starting point, let's say at the left, and extend to the right. But there is free space on the paper to the left of the arrow, so the question, "what was before this starting point?" makes sense. The universe at any time in this simple model is a point on the line. Time is experiences by moving along the arrow, from one point in time to a later one. It is a very simple universe
That's where the sphere comes in. The beginning of the time arrow is at the north pole, and the arrow points south. The universe at any time is a circle of latitude around the sphere. The Big Bang is the special case of the circle being just one point - the north pole. To experience time in this model, you move the circle down the globe - all points on this circle are equally far along in the age of the universe. It's still a very simple universe
But the nice thing about this way of visualizing it this way is that, unlike the arrow on a piece of paper, which invites the question "what if you extend the arrow to the left of this beginning point", i.e. "what was before that", with time running down the globe from the north pole, there is actually no place on the globe to point to and say "so what about that space? what time does it represent?" Time runs north to south. There simply is no "north of the north pole". There's just this point, the north pole, where all directions, and also the one we decided to call "time", converge into a single point.That's all. Not trying to be smarter-than-thou, just trying to show how I understand it.
Sure, more power to you! Thanks for a really nice discussion.
The Anthropic Principle comes in two variants, by the way. You might actually enjoy the strong one. Just saying.
Also, Plato has a lot to answer for, I think. But that's a discussion for another time.
I know. The strong one necessitates infinite other universes.
Arif Ghamiq
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 221
- Points
- 43
The weak anthropic principle simply tells us: Stop asking why, children. You are here because you are here.
The strong AP informs us that we happen to exist in spite of such incredibly impossible odds against it happening by chance -- really impossible odds -- that the only possible explanation is that this universe is just one of an infinity of other universes.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec24.html
Pretty desperate stuff, huh?
The strong AP informs us that we happen to exist in spite of such incredibly impossible odds against it happening by chance -- really impossible odds -- that the only possible explanation is that this universe is just one of an infinity of other universes.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec24.html
Pretty desperate stuff, huh?
Last edited:
Except here we are trying to push beyond 'belief' into scientific reality.
At any rate the possibility of a 'divine hand' is at least as likely possible as that our existence is the result of a combination of coincidences zillions of times more unlikely than all the atoms in the universe? Or else as the result of infinite other universes just throwing up our one?
Last edited:
If anyone is not familiar with the frame of the fine-tuning/anthropic principle problem:
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Fine-tuning_argument
Fine-tuning argument
For more information, see the TalkOrigins
The Anthropic Principle
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:
Fine-tuned Universe
With different physical constants, the universe would look quite different.
In cosmology, fine tuning refers to the precise balance of cosmological constants that allow the observable universe to exist as it does.
If the constants were slightly different, the universe would be significantly different. There are many such physical constants including: the speed of light, the rate of expansion of the universe, the force of gravity, the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force.
The fine tuning argument states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth.
The argument of fine tuning is a rather new one. It has only become popular since the mid-1990s with recent observations about the observable universe and cosmological constants. Cosmologists have theorized that even minute variations in the values of these constants would have resulted in a radically different universe or one altogether unsuitable for supporting life as we know it.
The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible. (This claim is also known as the weak anthropic principle.)[1]"
"To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to no more than happy coincidence, without doubt constitutes a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who affirms the theistic design of the universe.[2]"
"In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth-a planet with scores of improbable and interdependent life-supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe.[3]"
Essentially this argument is just a variation on the argument from design but uses cosmology rather than biological problems ...
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Fine-tuning_argument
Fine-tuning argument
For more information, see the TalkOrigins
The Anthropic Principle
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:
Fine-tuned Universe
In cosmology, fine tuning refers to the precise balance of cosmological constants that allow the observable universe to exist as it does.
If the constants were slightly different, the universe would be significantly different. There are many such physical constants including: the speed of light, the rate of expansion of the universe, the force of gravity, the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force.
The fine tuning argument states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth.
The argument of fine tuning is a rather new one. It has only become popular since the mid-1990s with recent observations about the observable universe and cosmological constants. Cosmologists have theorized that even minute variations in the values of these constants would have resulted in a radically different universe or one altogether unsuitable for supporting life as we know it.
The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible. (This claim is also known as the weak anthropic principle.)[1]"
"To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to no more than happy coincidence, without doubt constitutes a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who affirms the theistic design of the universe.[2]"
"In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth-a planet with scores of improbable and interdependent life-supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe.[3]"
Essentially this argument is just a variation on the argument from design but uses cosmology rather than biological problems ...
Last edited:
The author of the above supposedly unbiased wiki article goes on to say:
"... Just as biological mysteries were solved by scientists, so too might the mysteries in cosmology. Fine tuning heavily depends on the argument from ignorance fallacy, god of the gaps and shifting the burden of proof. Also, this argument is essentially the same as the anthropic theistic principle ..."
Just as biological mysteries were solved by scientists, so too might the mysteries in cosmology
They have? They've been solved? Even Nick Lane the world leading biologist working on abiogenesis admits the possibility of an Archaea combining with a Protozoa in the once off, one-time-only-in-the-whole-history-of-life-on-Earth event that he proposes as the only possible explanation for the jump from bacterial to eukaryotic life -- is equivalent to 'a miracle'.
'And so too might the miracles of cosmology' be explained by science, which is wonderful, but jeez, and pigs might fly -- this is the same guy talking about 'the god of the gaps'. It would be funny if it wasn't so obviously weak and biased.
Arguments from ignorance. Shifting the burden of proof, etc.
I can't be bothered to address the rest of his superior smirking points, except to say that as a supposedly unbiased wiki contributor, he then goes on hilariously and blindly to contradict himself in the rest of his own article. Which is informative, in spite of himself. So please do read it lol ...
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Fine-tuning_argument
"... Just as biological mysteries were solved by scientists, so too might the mysteries in cosmology. Fine tuning heavily depends on the argument from ignorance fallacy, god of the gaps and shifting the burden of proof. Also, this argument is essentially the same as the anthropic theistic principle ..."
Just as biological mysteries were solved by scientists, so too might the mysteries in cosmology
They have? They've been solved? Even Nick Lane the world leading biologist working on abiogenesis admits the possibility of an Archaea combining with a Protozoa in the once off, one-time-only-in-the-whole-history-of-life-on-Earth event that he proposes as the only possible explanation for the jump from bacterial to eukaryotic life -- is equivalent to 'a miracle'.
'And so too might the miracles of cosmology' be explained by science, which is wonderful, but jeez, and pigs might fly -- this is the same guy talking about 'the god of the gaps'. It would be funny if it wasn't so obviously weak and biased.
Arguments from ignorance. Shifting the burden of proof, etc.
I can't be bothered to address the rest of his superior smirking points, except to say that as a supposedly unbiased wiki contributor, he then goes on hilariously and blindly to contradict himself in the rest of his own article. Which is informative, in spite of himself. So please do read it lol ...
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Fine-tuning_argument
Last edited:
I was hoping to find a YouTube clip of someone singing the WWI classic "We're here because ... " but I found them all rather post-modern and meaningful.
Lyric:
"We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here,
"We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here."
Repeat ad infinitum (To the tune of Auld Lang Syne)
Lyric:
"We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here,
"We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here."
Repeat ad infinitum (To the tune of Auld Lang Syne)
The more you go into the 'miracle of life' or simply the odds against us, as it were, the more staggering it becomes.
Reading New Scientist was always throwing up something ... that our oxygen atmosphere resulted in part from a cataclysmic accident, that the combination of RNA and DNA in 'a muddy puddle' laid a foundational stepping-stone for organic life ...
A head of physics dept friend of mine keeps up with cosmological theory, and in conversation we've both agreed that some of the solutions to the problem are put forward are no more outlandish than the idea of a Creator God.
The idea that science has solved the mysteries of its field (eg biology, as mentioned above) is nonsense. Science has solved a lot, but often thrown up others. In maths theory, for example, thanks to computers there are more questions now than there were before.
And, it always makes me smile, we think we understand, but do we?
How many people think electricity flows along wires like water down a pipe?
Reading New Scientist was always throwing up something ... that our oxygen atmosphere resulted in part from a cataclysmic accident, that the combination of RNA and DNA in 'a muddy puddle' laid a foundational stepping-stone for organic life ...
A head of physics dept friend of mine keeps up with cosmological theory, and in conversation we've both agreed that some of the solutions to the problem are put forward are no more outlandish than the idea of a Creator God.
The idea that science has solved the mysteries of its field (eg biology, as mentioned above) is nonsense. Science has solved a lot, but often thrown up others. In maths theory, for example, thanks to computers there are more questions now than there were before.
And, it always makes me smile, we think we understand, but do we?
How many people think electricity flows along wires like water down a pipe?
But you know, as the extreme left wing loony fringe is in a way responsible for the swing toward the nationalistic right in politics -- so too the smug arrogance of these celebrity atheist scientists is mostly in reaction to the televangelist type of literalist creationists -- if you know what I mean?
Last edited:
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Fine-tuning_argument
I apologise that the link (above) to the fine tuning article I posted is not actually from Wikipedia but from a site called 'religions.wiki'
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Main_Page
which is:
" ... intended to provide information on apologetics and counter-apologetics. We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerad as evidence for religious claims...."
That would be fine except there is no pretence of impartiality and it dishonestly imitates the Wikipedia logo and presentation, so it was easy to make the mistake. I apologise.
But as I said, the writer actually does end up providing some useful information in spite of his own one-sided aporoach.
But the first link I posted, to the anthropic principle article, is much better: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec24.html
Sorry again
I apologise that the link (above) to the fine tuning article I posted is not actually from Wikipedia but from a site called 'religions.wiki'
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Main_Page
which is:
" ... intended to provide information on apologetics and counter-apologetics. We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerad as evidence for religious claims...."
That would be fine except there is no pretence of impartiality and it dishonestly imitates the Wikipedia logo and presentation, so it was easy to make the mistake. I apologise.
But as I said, the writer actually does end up providing some useful information in spite of his own one-sided aporoach.
But the first link I posted, to the anthropic principle article, is much better: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec24.html
Sorry again
Last edited:
Not even the extreme, but even centrist liberalism is unable to mount a sufficient challenge in the face of an emerging right-wing nationalism – the US and Europe, even Russia and China in their own way.
I fear the great liberal enterprise that kicked off in the 60s led to the economic and environmental profligacy that's landed the world in the mess it's in now. Liberal libertarianism seems to have had its day, used up its resources and appears to be running out of steam?
That BJ is PM in the UK is a testimony to the failure of the system, especially in the face of aggressive social media algorithms. Ditto DT in the US. In both cases, what is so disturbing is not just the phenomena of Trump and Johnson, but the inability of the opposition to find its voice ...
We live, as the saying goes, in interesting times ...
Also Bolsanaro cutting down the Amazon forest. "Brazil is our country, we can do what we like with it." So at a time global solutions are needed for such things, instead we get increasing nationalism.
But for the left to find its voice it first has to disassociate from the Momentum old style Marxists, and the lgbtq(xyz) Napoleons and the climate change loonies blocking rush hour traffic and gluing themselves to trains to stop people getting to work, etc.
It becomes the common perception of what liberals are and it just ends up turning people away, imo. Especially the sane and sensible Brits, lol.
Last edited:
Whee....
As the world turns
Tis a roller coaster ride like my blood pressure...
As the world turns
Tis a roller coaster ride like my blood pressure...
Time to be in this world but not of it? Or of this world but not in it?
Yes,yes,yes
So, you believe that the universe existed prior to the stuff it is made up of?
Obviously I went to the effort of making the statement because I too am interested in your response.
The universe is made up of it's parts. It is contingent on them.
But is everything caused by something else?