When Faith and Science Clash

[IATIA]

Absofuckinglutely not. There are thousands of things that have and have not happened because of chance. The way life evolved is an example. Planets and meteor strikes also. If you roll a die, it's not going to roll 6 every time, will it?

I was talking about the constants of electrons, speed of light, speed of expansion....if all this arises from "nothing" or "infinite density"...then why would it differ universe to universe when they would have came about from the same thing?

What System of Solace says. Can you roll a '6' everytime?

It would be unlikely that what generated the big bang would be precisely the same everytime. Then again, maybe a Big Bang can only happen under 'precisely' the same circumstances everytime. This pretty much falls into the area of truly unknowable.

[Mystic]

So perhaps physical necessity is a solution to the teleological argument?

[genkaus]

The following is copied from Reasonable Faith's website:

Let me give some examples of fine tuning because physics abounds with examples of fine tuning. But before I do so, let me give you some numbers to give you a feel for the delicacy of the fine tuning because otherwise the numbers are so large they become meaningless to us. The number of seconds in the history of the universe, from the very beginning of the universe, is about 10^17. That is a 1 followed by 17 zeroes. Just an incomprehensible number – but that is the number of seconds in the universe. The number of subatomic particles in the entire known universe is around 10^80.

With those numbers in mind, consider the following. The atomic weak force which operates within the nucleus of the atom is so finely tuned that an alteration of even one part out of 10^100 would have rendered the universe life-prohibiting. In order to permit life, the weak force has to be fine tuned to one part out of 10^100. Similarly, the so called cosmological constant, which drives the acceleration of the universe, has to be fine tuned to within one part out of 10^120 in order for the universe to be life- permitting. Here is a real corker: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has estimated that the initial entropy condition – the entropy level of the early universe – has to be fine tuned to one part out of 10^10^(123) – a number which is so incomprehensible that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement.

It is not just one of these numbers that must be fine tuned but all of them. So you multiply these probabilities together until our minds are just reeling in incomprehensible numbers. Having an accuracy of even one part out of 10^60 would be like having a range the size of the entire visible universe – 20 billion light years across – and in order for life to exist, a randomly thrown dart would have to land in an area one inch square. And that is just one part in 10^60! We are talking about numbers that are just unimaginably greater than that.

These are just some of the examples of fine tuning. The examples of fine tuning are so many and so various that they are unlikely to disappear with the further advance of science. Like it or not, the fine tuning of the universe for life is just a scientific fact which is well-established.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z272yV1YIK

~~~~~~~


These number/conditions are incredible!

This would be like if you were put before a firing squad of a few hundred trained marksmen and you hear them say, "Ready, Aim, Fire!"

You open your eyes and you see that all of the bullets have somehow missed you.

Would you conclude that they all missed by chance and be satisfied to leave it at that or would you conclude that they missed on purpose?

I would conclude that they missed on purpose.

Can you answer these questions:

1. You keep repeating the word "fine-tuned". Which means you know for a fact that these values are tunable. That is, they could have been anything other than what they are. Can you prove that? Can you show me that these values can be changed - thereby proving that they were result of a selection and not of a causal necessity. Because if it's the latter, the probability in all cases becomes 1 in 1.

2. Secondly, you keep repeating "life-permitting", but exactly what conditions are life permitting? Can you prove that if the constants were different, not only there won't be organic life, but no other kind of life either?

Tobie Disagrees

Nope. He just pointed out the other one. First was the misrepresentation of atheism and the second was invalid comparison to the rock scenario.

---

Win the lottery once...that's fine chance. Win it again, and again, and again....I think that points to a pattern....

And since there is only one kind of life known, we've won the lottery once only.

---

When Physicists say the universe is fined tuned, they don't mean God did it.

Ones who are arguing for intelligent design do.

Ones arguing for intelligent design are not physicists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

It isn't a good argument, and not because there are other universes (are there?), it's been a shitty argument for longer than any other universe has been proposed.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

As can, "there is no fucking design"......

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

You have questions about other universes but not the status of this one..that's just glossed over.....

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

More glossing. The "designer" wants nothing, there is no design.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

You should, rather than blathering on about designs and designers before even attempting to do so.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

So no evidence you'd be willing to present, make an argument for..etc etc etc. Garbage Mystic, absolute garbage.

[Ryantology]

It seems to me that at the core of atheism is a deep "faith" in one's own cognitive abilities and their reliability in determining truth.

If atheism is true, then your cognitive abilities have evolved with the aim of survivability....not truth.

Not even. The very basis of classical computation, the process of information for a useful purpose, is a search for truth. Binary, which is about as simple as you can get in terms of elemental functions, is either a true or false state. When you get into thinking, which is computation in some of its more complex forms, you're still basically tossing about countless true-false problems and answering them with experience and observation.

Knowing the truth of a situation is essential to surviving it without having to rely on favorable chance. The more you know, the more favorable your odds. A search for greater truth is not some opposing behavior to a focus on survival. It is merely the mental luxury we animals enjoy thanks to our relatively robust brains and (for many of us, at least) a lack of existential threats to people. It is beyond considerations of immediate survival.

[Jackalope]

So perhaps physical necessity is a solution to the teleological argument?

You say that as if the teleological argument hadn't been refuted thoroughly nearly three centuries ago.

[genkaus]

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

Even if this were the only universe, no one said that the values came about by chance. You are assuming that those constants could have had any value all of which would've been equiprobable. But physics doesn't work like that. When you toss a coin in the air, mathematics might say that the chance of getting heads is 50-50, but in physics, we can actually determined at the throw that the chance of heads is 100% and of tails is 0 or vice-versa.

[Simon Moon]

Let me give some examples of fine tuning because physics abounds with examples of fine tuning.

The biggest fallacy that the fine tuning argument makes is looking at the outcome and assuming it was predetermined.

Here's an example of why it fails.

When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than 1 in 635 billion. Yet, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, and exclaim, “wow, the odds against getting these exact cards are 635 billion to 1. I couldn’t possibly have been dealt this hand by chance. There must have been supernatural intervention.”

That is the fallacy of this idea. The assumption that the universe and world as it exists was a predetermined outcome. This is not the case. It is what it is because that’s the thirteen cards that were dealt. 635 billion to 1 against getting those exact cards, but 1 to 1 odds that 13 cards would be dealt and you would get something.

It's easy to imagine an ammonia-breathing intelligent being somewhere right now saying, “wow, what are the odds that this planet has just the right amount of ammonia in the atmosphere, we are just the right distance from our sun to maintain an average temperature of 180º F, the three moons provide just the right amount of tidal action, . . . My, what a finely tuned planet this is.”

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/13cards.htm

[Mystic]

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

Even if this were the only universe, no one said that the values came about by chance. You are assuming that those constants could have had any value all of which would've been equiprobable. But physics doesn't work like that. When you toss a coin in the air, mathematics might say that the chance of getting heads is 50-50, but in physics, we can actually determined at the throw that the chance of heads is 100% and of tails is 0 or vice-versa.

So it's by physical necessity?

[genkaus]

So it's by physical necessity?

It may very well be. We don't know for certain, but we don't have a reason to expect otherwise and we do have reasons (constants with root cause known) to expect it.