Fine-tuning: multiverse or God

[MarkE]

In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as evidence for God. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/ySytgily-54%5B1-25%5D

A number of responders questioned the need to explain or acknowledge ‘fine-tuning’, or its implications.

Just for the record:

1. Leonard Susskind, Felix Block Professor of Physics, Stanford University, disagrees. He concludes that ‘fine-tuning’ does need an explanation. A multiverse is his belief: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

2. Professor Brian Greene (theoretical physicist and string theorist) also argues for a multiverse: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw

3. Dr Luke A. Barnes (a postdoctoral researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy) commenting on the level of acceptance of the fine-tuning claim: “I’ve published a review of the scientific literature, 200+ papers, and I can only think of a handful that oppose this conclusion, and piles and piles that support it.”
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/christmas-tripe-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-3/

It appears that the scientific evidence is moving in the direction of a multiverse or God.

“‘Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation,’ writes journalist Tim Folger. ‘Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.’ Folger quotes cosmologist Bernard Carr: ‘If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.’” (New Scientist, 2685, page 48, 6 December 2008)

Is belief in God over a multiverse any less rational or reasonable? Regarding a multiverse:

- No empirical evidence exists for any universe other than our own
- We need vast numbers of other universes to overcome astronomical odds against a life-permitting universe – probably more than 10^100 (which is more than the number of subatomic particles in our observable universe)
- A universe generating mechanism might itself require fine-tuning to generate so many universes.
- The new universes would need to have different physical constants
- The constants would need to vary extremely widely

Your belief at this point may have more to do with your own life choices and desires than science and reason. It was for Aldous Huxley:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

[Jonathan]

On 5/28/2016 5:29 AM, MarkE wrote:

> In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as evidence for God. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/ySytgily-54%5B1-25%5D
>
> A number of responders questioned the need to explain or acknowledge ‘fine-tuning’, or its implications.
>

I think the difficulty with getting a grasp of the fine tuning
problem is in limiting the question to cosmology.

Would you agree underlying patterns or tendencies
are better seen in larger statistical samples, rather
than simpler ones? For instance opinion polls or
society at large rather than a single household?

Well the same would hold for complexity, life is
far more complex than physical systems, and so
living systems would better display underlying
patterns of behavior.

So the question then becomes would, say, an old growth
forest, or well honed business become fine tuned
by an initial design laid out in advance?

Or does the system become fine tuned as it evolves?

An ecosystem, or successful business, becomes fine tuned
from the persistent competition between competing forces.
The system settles on the ideal practical solutions.

So any successful self organized system should be
seen as finely tuned, whether a forest or a
universe.

In addition it's often lost that self organized
systems ARE NOT highly dependent on initial
conditions. They can and often do take hold
across a wide range of initial conditions.

After all evolution, or self organization, takes
a poorly tuned system and generates more order
over time. It creates the conditions it needs
and it's own environment.

But this shouldn't reduce our wonder or reverence
for reality, a universe that fine tunes...itself
is far more amazing than one designed by an
intelligent hand, and demonstrates that God
is truly everywhere, and in everything.

Not some unknowable mystery that predates our
universe, and hence is always constrained
to stand outside our universe, unapproachable
and unknowable.

If you just envision God coming at the...end
of the evolutionary ladder, not at the start
all the contradictions between science and
religion vanish into thin air.

And in a cyclic universe, in an iteration
start and finish are one in the same.



Jonathan



"I send Two Sunsets
Day and I in competition ran
I finished Two and several Stars
While He was making One

His own was ampler but as I
Was saying to a friend
Mine is the more convenient
To Carry in the Hand"



s

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 5:29:47 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as evidence for God. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/ySytgily-54%5B1-25%5D
>
> A number of responders questioned the need to explain or acknowledge ‘fine-tuning’, or its implications.
>
> Just for the record:
>
> 1. Leonard Susskind, Felix Block Professor of Physics, Stanford University, disagrees. He concludes that ‘fine-tuning’ does need an explanation. A multiverse is his belief: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s
>
> 2. Professor Brian Greene (theoretical physicist and string theorist) also argues for a multiverse: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw
>
> 3. Dr Luke A. Barnes (a postdoctoral researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy) commenting on the level of acceptance of the fine-tuning claim: “I’ve published a review of the scientific literature, 200+ papers, and I can only think of a handful that oppose this conclusion, and piles and piles that support it.”
> https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/christmas-tripe-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-3/
>
> It appears that the scientific evidence is moving in the direction of a multiverse or God.
>
> “‘Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation,’ writes journalist Tim Folger. ‘Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.’ Folger quotes cosmologist Bernard Carr: ‘If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.’” (New Scientist, 2685, page 48, 6 December 2008)
>
> Is belief in God over a multiverse any less rational or reasonable? Regarding a multiverse:
>
> - No empirical evidence exists for any universe other than our own

And no empirical evidence exists for God.

> - We need vast numbers of other universes to overcome astronomical odds against a life-permitting universe – probably more than 10^100 (which is more than the number of subatomic particles in our observable universe)

If you're postulating infinite multiverses you probably don't care whether there are more of them than there are particles in the fraction of the one universe that you can observe

> - A universe generating mechanism might itself require fine-tuning to generate so many universes.

Saying "God" just means that, by fiat, you don't have to worry about what generated God.

> - The new universes would need to have different physical constants

Yes.

> - The constants would need to vary extremely widely

As Steven Carlip pointed out to you, whether you call a range of variation "wide" or not depends on whether the thing that varies is x, 1/x, log(x), etc. And if you're dealing with infinite multiverses, who cares how wide a range the constants have to vary over anyway?

To me the problem with your question "multiverse or God" is that it implies that, if empirical evidence of a multiverse were found, the existence of God would be disproven. Why? What is incompatible about an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite god, creating an infinite multiverse? Is it because it would seem pointless for God to create lots of sterile universes just to produce one or a handful capable of supporting our wonderful selves? But if that's an argument against God, then so is the argument that the observable universe itself is mostly sterile, too.

In my view, an infinite multiverse is perfectly compatible with the existence of God. Likewise, if it turns out that, because of some deep physical law that will be worked out in 50 years time, that the physical constants only have one possible, consistent value, determined by whatever laws govern the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics, then that will, also, be perfectly compatible with God.

There's no possible result in cosmology or fundamental physics that could say "See, end of story, there cannot be a God." Thinking that science is going to prove the existence of God (by failing to explain something interesting) or disprove the existence of God (by explaining something that had seemed mysterious), just shows a lack of scientific or theological imagination.

That's true as long as your religion does not require you to hold beliefs (e.g. a global flood a few thousand years ago) that blatantly contradict science. As long as you don't stake your faith on testable physical claims that are obviously false, science has nothing to say about it one way or the other.

>
> Your belief at this point may have more to do with your own life choices and desires than science and reason. It was for Aldous Huxley:

That argument always cuts both ways. And note that, at the time Aldous Huxley wrote that passage (in The Perennial Philosophy, I think) he had already converted to theism, and his then current "life choices and desires" may well have influenced how he saw his previous beliefs. He certainly does not speak for all atheists.

>
> “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

You personally don't seem to make these arguments, but a heck of a lot of the creationists who come here seem to think that the main reason people reject Christianity is because it "interfered with our sexual freedom." If you are being driven crazy by restrictions on your sexual freedom imposed by your religion, you might think that anyone who rejects your religion does so in order to have more sex. Some creationists seem to be quite obsessed and tormented by sexuality. That does not mean that that obsession is what makes most atheists atheists.

[MarkE]

> To me the problem with your question "multiverse or God" is that it implies that, if empirical evidence of a multiverse were found, the existence of God would be disproven. Why? What is incompatible about an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite god, creating an infinite multiverse? Is it because it would seem pointless for God to create lots of sterile universes just to produce one or a handful capable of supporting our wonderful selves? But if that's an argument against God, then so is the argument that the observable universe itself is mostly sterile, too.
>
> In my view, an infinite multiverse is perfectly compatible with the existence of God. Likewise, if it turns out that, because of some deep physical law that will be worked out in 50 years time, that the physical constants only have one possible, consistent value, determined by whatever laws govern the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics, then that will, also, be perfectly compatible with God.
>
> There's no possible result in cosmology or fundamental physics that could say "See, end of story, there cannot be a God." Thinking that science is going to prove the existence of God (by failing to explain something interesting) or disprove the existence of God (by explaining something that had seemed mysterious), just shows a lack of scientific or theological imagination.
>
> That's true as long as your religion does not require you to hold beliefs (e.g. a global flood a few thousand years ago) that blatantly contradict science. As long as you don't stake your faith on testable physical claims that are obviously false, science has nothing to say about it one way or the other.

Actually, good point, it's not a symmetrical multiverse vs God either-way choice. If superclusters of galaxies declare God's power, why not superclusters of universes?

But asymmetrically, an appeal to a multiverse to accommodate fine-tuning in a naturalistic framework seems...desperate?

[Jonathan]

On 5/28/2016 7:47 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:


>
> And no empirical evidence exists for God.
>

How do you define God?

Your definition might not have evidence, other
definitions might have plenty.

Mainstream religions define God by analogy
not from direct evidence. And the analogy
used is the intrinsic properties of the
observed universe, which are characterized
from scientific observations.

If you only have the 'children' to observe
what can you conclude about their parents?

Plenty, especially when it comes to questions
of meaning, say, form, creativity, wisdom or
beauty.

[Jonathan]

But a multiverse is really just a collection of ecosystems.
Each coevolutionary system creates their own unique
laws and rules, and each becomes fine-tuned.

There are countless unique and overlapping ecosystems
but only one relationship that allows them all to
emerge as they will. That universal relationship
would be God.

[solar penguin]

I choose a third option: neither a mulitiverse nor a God.
(Not that there's any real difference between the two anyway.)

[Bill Rogers]

Why desperate? Multiverses fall out of cosmic inflation, and cosmic inflation seems pretty well supported for something at the cutting edge of cosmology.

Desperate because it seems so bizarre? Lots of physics is bizarre once you get out of the range where your evolved intuitions are reliable.

And I think fine tuning is a poor argument for God. If your arguments about the impossibility of naturalistic abiogenesis are correct, then the universe is so poorly fine-tuned for life that God had to tweak things to get life started in the first place. If that's the case, he could just keep tweaking a poorly-tuned universe in order to sustain life. If the point of it all was to produce intelligent life, why make a universe largely incapable of sustaining any life at all? Why not just make a nice Dantean universe with the Earth at the center and the Primum Mobile outside, driving everything? Was Ceres really necessary? If you decline to speculate on what motivated God to make things this way, you're no less desperate than someone who invokes a multiverse simply because they dislike fine-tuning. All explanations end somewhere, you are just naming an undefined ending point "God," while others don't bother to give a name to the stuff we haven't explained yet.

[RonO]

My recommendation is to stop messing with what is wrong with the
alternatives, and solve the issues of what is wrong with yours so that
it may some day compete with the alternatives that you don't like. Try
to make a positive case for your alternative and see how it stacks up
with what we already know about nature.

You aren't going to get anywhere doing what you are doing. No matter
how bad the alternatives are, if yours is worse that is what you are
stuck with.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 5/28/2016 7:45 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/28/2016 7:47 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
>
>>
>> And no empirical evidence exists for God.
>>
>
>
>
> How do you define God?

He defined God elsewhere as "The uncaused First Cause who transcends
space and time and has always existed."

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/28/16 2:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
> In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as evidence for God.

Fine-tuning is not evidence for God. If you want to show me evidence
for God, show me a universe which is *not* fine-tuned, i.e., which
cannot physically support life, but which is full of life anyway.

The odds of life existing somewhere in a universe in which there are
beings asking what the odds of beings like them existing somewhere in
the universe are, are not small as the fine-tuning proponents claim;
they are exactly one.

How the properties of the universe came to be what they are is an
interesting question. Saying "God" does absolutely nothing to answer
the questions. Saying "fine-tuning" does not help, either, IMHO.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Steven Carlip]

On 5/28/16 10:05 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/28/16 2:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
>> In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as
>> evidence for God.

> Fine-tuning is not evidence for God. If you want to show me evidence
> for God, show me a universe which is *not* fine-tuned, i.e., which
> cannot physically support life, but which is full of life anyway.

To quote Galileo,

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones
made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver,
with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings
exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something.
It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the
Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Steve Carlip

[Kalkidas]

On 5/28/2016 10:05 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/28/16 2:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
>> In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as
>> evidence for God.
>
> Fine-tuning is not evidence for God. If you want to show me evidence
> for God, show me a universe which is *not* fine-tuned, i.e., which
> cannot physically support life, but which is full of life anyway.

How would you know if a universe was *not* fine-tuned? This seems at
least as difficult to establish as the claim that a given object was
*not* designed.

>
> The odds of life existing somewhere in a universe in which there are
> beings asking what the odds of beings like them existing somewhere in
> the universe are, are not small as the fine-tuning proponents claim;
> they are exactly one.



> How the properties of the universe came to be what they are is an
> interesting question. Saying "God" does absolutely nothing to answer
> the questions. Saying "fine-tuning" does not help, either, IMHO.

It's an interesting question unless you put so many restrictions on what
kind of answers you will accept that it becomes unanswerable.

[Steven Carlip]

On 5/28/16 5:48 AM, MarkE wrote:

[...]

> But asymmetrically, an appeal to a multiverse to accommodate
> fine-tuning in a naturalistic framework seems...desperate?

Only if you take it out of context.

I'll explain below, but, briefly, the idea of a multiverse
didn't come out of a desire to explain fine-tuning, but out
of an investigation of the properties of string theory. It
was only after the realization that string theory might lead
to a multiverse that many physicists, often reluctantly,
began to look to that as an explanation for fine-tuning.

In more detail:

"Anthropic" arguments are fairly old, having been popularized
by Carter in 1973. These are arguments that some characteristics
of the Universe are what they are because we would not be here
to see them if they were different. Anthropic arguments come
in various forms. Some are weak enough to be obviously true,
and simply have to do with selection bias. (Nobody argues that
it's mysterious that life evolved on the surface of a planet and
not in empty space, even though most of the Universe is empty
space.) Other stronger versions were generally treated with
a good deal skepticism, although they certainly had their
enthusiasts. The arguments rarely, if ever, invoked any sort
of multiverse.

"Eternal inflation" appeared in 1983. This was a set of models
of cosmology in which an infinite number of "universes" were
predicted to appear from a reasonable set of assumptions about
phase transitions in the early universe. The standard analogy
is boiling water, in which many bubbles of various sizes appear;
we don't think of "multi-bubbles" as being particularly odd.
Given the fairly strong evidence for inflationary cosmology, it
was natural to look at consequences of particular models, and
many of these led automatically to this kind of multiverse. In
itself, though, this idea didn't help much with fine-tuning,
since the physical constants would be the same in each universe
in such a multiverse.

Lee Smolin introduced the idea of a multiverse in which different
universes could have different fundamental constants in 1992.
The idea didn't generate a lot of interest; Smolin's original
paper has only about 80 citations.

The modern idea of combining a multiverse and fine-tuning dates,
I think, to a paper by Bousso and Polchinski, which you can
find at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0004134. The starting
point was the observation that in string theory, there are many
different solutions of the equations ("string vacua") that have
different values of the cosmological constant, and there are
physical processes that can change one solution into another.
This gives a theoretical framework for a multiverse in which the
various universes have different fundamental constants, and in
which anthropic arguments can be applied.

There's a nice early summary by Susskind that you can find at
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219. In his introduction, he
says, "Whether we like it or not, this is the kind of behavior
that gives credence to the Anthropic Principle." Note the
phrasing: it's not that the desire to explain fine tuning
leads to the idea of a multiverse, it's the prediction of a
multiverse in string theory that might force us to think about
anthropic explanations for fine-tuning.

Now, it could be that string theory is wrong. It could be that
it's right, but that there's some subtlety we don't yet understand
that makes the multiverse predictions wrong. But that's the
setting here -- the multiverse isn't some ad hoc explanation
invented to explain the existence of life, it's an apparently
automatic (and unexpected) outcome of a theoretical framework
that many believe to be our best chance to explain fundamental
physics.

Steve Carlip

[Burkhard]

I'm not sure if this argument isn't ultimately based on a similar
fallacy as the fine tuning argument you discuss elsethread. If God were
to cause birds to fly with bones of solid gold etc... then this is what
we would observe, then would have build our physical theories on this
data, and ultimately, in this possible world seeing birds with golden
bones fly would not be any more perceived a violation of the laws of
physics as seeing birds with bones made from calcium and collagen -
after all they are heavier than air too. Indeed, we can imagine a
scientist called Oelilag in this world who argues against an
interventionist deity by saying that such a god could just as well have
made bones from calcium, with their veins full of water, salts and
protein, etc etc.

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 23:33:59 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Albert Einstein wrote "The most incomprehensible thing about the
universe is that it is comprehensible". My understanding is that the
same could not be said of a universe as Galileo described above.

To be sure, we could still document the way things work, but there
would be no relationships. Everything would be arbitrary. There
would be no rhyme or reason or order to anything. There would be no
periodic table, or generalized theories or mathematical laws. Instead,
everything would just be arbitrary, as if some whimsical Deity put
things together.

There were many things in the past about this Universe which made no
sense, but now they do. There are still many things about this
Universe which makes no sense, but less than in the past, and almost
certainly not as much as there will be in the future.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/28/2016 05:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
> In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as evidence for God. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/ySytgily-54%5B1-25%5D
>
> A number of responders questioned the need to explain or acknowledge ‘fine-tuning’, or its implications.

In that thread The Harsh had pointed out that there's a hidden tension
between fine tining and the alleged problems of abiogenesis. If the
universe is too well tuned then the emergence of life is inevitable.
Spontaneous generation should abound. Maybe this universe is at best
coarse tuned? Otherwise a glass of boiled water protected from the input
of the surrounding air should put forward new forms of life as we speak.
That ain't happening? Maybe the universe isn't that fine tuned to the
anthropic extent that we place ourselves back upon the pedestal that
Copernicus and Darwin smashed with their hammers. Fine tuning sounds
Teilhardian as in omega. Are we inevitable?

If we weren't here to bloviate like self-important asswipes, thus the
wave function couldn't collapse into backwardly causal bliss. We provide
our observer effects don't we? Yet a well placed asteroid killed off the
non-avian dinos and facilitated the rise eventually of bloviation on
usenet. Without that extinction event we presently lack the bloviating
ass Deepak Chopra and his stylish sunglasses. Consciousness as
fundamental my ass. Consciousness and gods are derivative. The K-T
asteroid created the conditions for a species with the capacity for
superstition and self-important bullshit.

Meaning is self-created and derivatively intersubjective. QED. We
created gods partly as a foil against Thanatos and partly to justify our
nascent moral senses.

[J. J. Lodder]

No good. Galileo's point (and Carlip's I guess)
is that it would be evidence for god
if we would see miracles happening all the time.
(that is, things that obviously go against the laws of nature)

As it is, even the RC church is gradually giving up on miracles,
in the last field where they still ocurred regularly. (medicine)
Performing miracles is getting waived as a requirement for sainthood,

Jan

[MarkE]

Thanks for that perspective. There does seem to an interesting relationship between string theory's multiverse prediction and the problem of fine tuning:

"It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance. To explain this absurd bit of luck, the multiverse idea has been growing mainstream in cosmology circles over the past few decades."

And:

"Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam. According to a popular but polarizing framework called string theory, the number of possible types of universes that can bubble up in a multiverse is around 10^500. In a few of them, chance cancellations would produce the strange constants we observe."

Also intriguing is the notion of 'naturalness':

"...would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations. In peril is the notion of 'naturalness'”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

[Steady Eddie]

Thank you, Mark, for your steady stream of amazing documentation of your fascinating points.
I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
:)

[MarkE]

> > But asymmetrically, an appeal to a multiverse to accommodate fine-tuning in a naturalistic framework seems...desperate?
>
> Why desperate? Multiverses fall out of cosmic inflation, and cosmic inflation seems pretty well supported for something at the cutting edge of cosmology.
>
> Desperate because it seems so bizarre? Lots of physics is bizarre once you get out of the range where your evolved intuitions are reliable.
>
> And I think fine tuning is a poor argument for God. If your arguments about the impossibility of naturalistic abiogenesis are correct, then the universe is so poorly fine-tuned for life that God had to tweak things to get life started in the first place. If that's the case, he could just keep tweaking a poorly-tuned universe in order to sustain life. If the point of it all was to produce intelligent life, why make a universe largely incapable of sustaining any life at all? Why not just make a nice Dantean universe with the Earth at the center and the Primum Mobile outside, driving everything? Was Ceres really necessary? If you decline to speculate on what motivated God to make things this way, you're no less desperate than someone who invokes a multiverse simply because they dislike fine-tuning. All explanations end somewhere, you are just naming an undefined ending point "God," while others don't bother to give a name to the stuff we haven't explained yet.

As I've said elsewhere:

In practice, I'm not pinning too much on this. Recently a guy came up to me and said "I believe in science, not God". I said I believe in science too. Then I mentioned fine tuning and my own interpretation that it points to God, and invited him to therefore rethink his roadblock and talk about God. Or, defend the most viable alternative (IMO), i.e. a multiverse. It lead to a good conversation. But it's a conversation starter only. No-one is converted by an argument.

I don't agree with Paul Davies overall, but I can go with the gist of this:

"It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion, science offers a surer path to God than religion."

[Bill Rogers]

If the strongly supported existence of multiverses would not be evidence against God (and I think it would not be evidence against God), then the lack of empirical support for multiverses, or the strangeness of the idea of multiverses, cannot be evidence for God.

[Jonathan]

I envision the fine tuning problem as in a vast sea
where, here and there, a whirlpool spins up and creates
the ideal conditions for life.

The ideal initial conditions for the eddies of organization
would merely be the critical interaction between
the opposing forces of the universe, gravity and cosmic
expansion, which generates the fluid-like space time.

Just as water, as the critical form between solid and vapor
is the ideal condition for life.





I think that the Root of the Wind is Water
It would not sound so deep
Were it a Firmamental Product
Airs no Oceans keep
Mediterranean intonations
To a Current's Ear
There is a maritime conviction
In the Atmosphere





s

[Burkhard]

I agree that this is Carlip's point, but I'm not sure it is the point
Galileo makes. Though it is a point he might have tried to make - just
not thought through, which was my point, so to speak.

[Burkhard]

I'd say that depends. If we observed in general that birds have golden
bones (or better still, living things that fly have golden bones), then
we'd still have general laws, just different laws (and some might have
restrictions the present ones don't, but others might also more general,
where current laws have restrictions).

A different scenario would be if be if we observed only the occasional
bird with golden bones (most are just like our birds) while at the same
time having a well confirmed theory that says birds with golden bones
should not be able to fly. That would indeed lead to a world like you
describe

I don't think the Galileo quote distinguishes between these two
scenarios, they are both consistent with the text. In one you get a
different physics, in the other you get a level of chaos that only
allows for documentation end description, but not science as we know it.
(well, actually, the kind of "science" some of our creationists
advocate, one with out (hardly any) inferences)

[Jonathan]

On 5/28/2016 1:05 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/28/16 2:29 AM, MarkE wrote:


>> In the recent topic ‘Unusual request’ I mentioned fine-tuning as
>> evidence for God.

The universe isn't begin finely tuned, but naturally
evolves as the result of a dynamic process.
The very same process creates very small areas
of the universe that are fine tuned for life.

See my post of the interview with Steinhardt
about fine tuning and multiverses.

>
> Fine-tuning is not evidence for God. If you want to show me evidence
> for God, show me a universe which is *not* fine-tuned, i.e., which
> cannot physically support life, but which is full of life anyway.
>

Here's one 'mini universe' that answers your challenge

http://www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com/images/AXMISSpic.jpg


Point being the fraction of the universe that can
support life is infinitesimal. The process of
self organization creates the suitable conditions
for a universe. And the same process creates
ideal conditions for life in very small areas
of the universe.

> The odds of life existing somewhere in a universe in which there are
> beings asking what the odds of beings like them existing somewhere in
> the universe are, are not small as the fine-tuning proponents claim;
> they are exactly one.
>

And the chances of a ball spun inside a bowl coming
to rest at the bottom is the same. Both systems
are attracted to such final states.

So is a process which takes disorder and turns it
into order. The Second Law creates the ideal conditions
for self organization, and that is a process any
universe must have, else it would exist.

> How the properties of the universe came to be what they are is an
> interesting question. Saying "God" does absolutely nothing to answer
> the questions. Saying "fine-tuning" does not help, either, IMHO.
>

But looking at how coevolutionary systems become fine tuned
does help. the more complex a system, the more relevant
it's properties. Life is far more complex than physical
systems.

Looking at the early universe to unravel this question
is a bit like looking at a grain of sand to understand
how a castle came to be.



Jonathan


s

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:25:16 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

IIUC both of the scenarios you describe above disallow the creation of
general rules. "all living things that fly have bones of gold" is not
an example of a general law. A general law would identify some
property or properties of gold which enables living things to fly.
Then we could identify other elements or molecules which have similar
properties of gold which also allowed living things to fly.
Alternately, a general rule would identify what's so unique about gold
that it gives living things the ability to fly. Failing both of these
cases leaves one with an incomprehensible Universe.

[J. J. Lodder]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 May 2016 23:33:59 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Steven Carlip wrote:
> >>> On 5/28/16 10:05 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 5/28/16 2:29 AM, MarkE wrote:

> >>>>> In the recent topic ŒUnusual request' I mentioned fine-tuning as

I would say that this goes entirely against the grain
for both Einstein and Galileo.

> A different scenario would be if be if we observed only the occasional
> bird with golden bones (most are just like our birds) while at the same
> time having a well confirmed theory that says birds with golden bones
> should not be able to fly. That would indeed lead to a world like you
> describe

For both mere observation wasn't enough.
They wanted a comprehensible universe,
not just a jumble of unrelated empirical 'laws'.

> I don't think the Galileo quote distinguishes between these two
> scenarios, they are both consistent with the text. In one you get a
> different physics, in the other you get a level of chaos that only
> allows for documentation end description, but not science as we know it.
> (well, actually, the kind of "science" some of our creationists
> advocate, one with out (hardly any) inferences)

Consistent with your interpretation of the words perhaps,
but not with Galileo's attitude as a scientist.
Both G. and E wanted above all to see coherent laws of nature.
To see all things heavy fall,
except heavier that lead birds happily flying along
is incredible, because it doesn't fit
with any conceivable overall pattern,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Galileo was just guessing as to what the laws of nature
might turn out to be.
So lacking the required knowldge,
he just makes up an obviously absurd example,
absurd even by the limited knowledge about the laws of nature
available in his days,

Jan

[Ernest Major]

You seem to be holding two contradictory positions.

--
alias Ernest Major

[MarkE]

No, just agreeing with Davies that science points to God, but disagreeing that it is a surer path than Christianity.

[Jimbo]

The 'interesting relationship' in this case would be the increasing
acceptance among physicists of a prediction that is an inherent
implication of string theory and that, as a sort of side-effect,
accounts for 'fine tuning'. This is far from being a unique
development in the history of science. Time and again it has happened
that a theory turns out to have wider implications than initially
thought.

>And:
>
>"Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam. According to a popular but polarizing framework called string theory, the number of possible types of universes that can bubble up in a multiverse is around 10^500. In a few of them, chance cancellations would produce the strange constants we observe."
>
>Also intriguing is the notion of 'naturalness':
>
>"...would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations. In peril is the notion of 'naturalness'”
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

Even if our own universe is 'unnatural in the sense of having
universal constants that are the product of chance fluctuations in a
wider multiverse, this multiverse itself may emerge from physically
necessary underlying natural laws. Throw in the weak anthropic
principle and we have what could be the basis for a self-consistent
system within which our particular universe is a special case with
particular 'settings' or 'parameters' allowing our kind of life and
consciousness to arise.

What can you add to this by postulating the existence of an
intelligent designer? If you're unwilling to characterize this
putative designer in any way, then you're eliminating the possibility
that objectively testable hypotheses can ever emerge from your
thinking. You're doing apologetics, not science, and you're insuring
that your approach can never produce any new knowledge of this or any
other universe. It also can't produce any understanding of the
intelligent creator, if any such being exists.

[MarkE]

> >Also intriguing is the notion of 'naturalness':
> >
> >"...would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations. In peril is the notion of 'naturalness'”
> >
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/
>
> Even if our own universe is 'unnatural in the sense of having
> universal constants that are the product of chance fluctuations in a
> wider multiverse, this multiverse itself may emerge from physically
> necessary underlying natural laws. Throw in the weak anthropic
> principle and we have what could be the basis for a self-consistent
> system within which our particular universe is a special case with
> particular 'settings' or 'parameters' allowing our kind of life and
> consciousness to arise.
>
> What can you add to this by postulating the existence of an
> intelligent designer? If you're unwilling to characterize this
> putative designer in any way, then you're eliminating the possibility
> that objectively testable hypotheses can ever emerge from your
> thinking. You're doing apologetics, not science, and you're insuring
> that your approach can never produce any new knowledge of this or any
> other universe. It also can't produce any understanding of the
> intelligent creator, if any such being exists.

You may be missing the irony of your demand here for an "objectively testable hypotheses". That seems to be precisely the problem with the multiverse hypotheses. And, as I've attempted to show at the start of this topic, it's a choice between that and God. Welcome to the age of metaphysics?

From an interview with Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University:

"You were one of the originators of inflation theory. When and why did you start having doubts about it?"

...

"Combine the inflationary multiverse with the string landscape, and now one has a ‘supertheory of anything’: both the cosmological properties and the microphysical properties of the universe are accidental and unpredictable."

...

"'To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.
Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.

"'My own belief in Jesus Christ is based on personal conviction and experience (non-verifiable of course), the Bible's compelling and coherent story, the testimony of others, the evidence of creation, science, historical data etc etc.'"

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

Here is an example of historical circumstantial evidence for Christianity (the "Jesus Hypothesis", if you like):

"...professional [secular] New Testament historians, of varying beliefs themselves, many of whom hold the chairs at leading secular universities around the world. All of these scholars agree that there is an irreducible historical core to the resurrection story that cannot be explained away as pious legend or wholesale deceit. Professor Sanders, who warms a seat at the sceptical end of mainstream scholarship, states things plainly: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” This is typical of the secular study of Jesus: something very strange happened, we just don’t quite know what! Put another way, there is a resurrection-shaped ‘dent’ in the historical record."

http://anglicanchurchnoosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Article-re-the-resurrection-by-John-Dickson.pdf

[MarkE]

> Thank you, Mark, for your steady stream of amazing documentation of your fascinating points.
> I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
> :)

Cheers Eddie - nice to know someone finds it fascinating!

[MarkE]

Correction, I'm going cross-eyed, the order should be:

<quote>

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

My own belief in Jesus Christ is based on personal conviction and experience (non-verifiable of course), the Bible's compelling and coherent story, the testimony of others, the evidence of creation, science, historical data etc etc.'"

...

[Jimbo]

On Mon, 30 May 2016 03:12:55 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Also intriguing is the notion of 'naturalness':
>> >
>> >"...would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations. In peril is the notion of 'naturalness'”
>> >
>> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/
>>
>> Even if our own universe is 'unnatural in the sense of having
>> universal constants that are the product of chance fluctuations in a
>> wider multiverse, this multiverse itself may emerge from physically
>> necessary underlying natural laws. Throw in the weak anthropic
>> principle and we have what could be the basis for a self-consistent
>> system within which our particular universe is a special case with
>> particular 'settings' or 'parameters' allowing our kind of life and
>> consciousness to arise.
>>
>> What can you add to this by postulating the existence of an
>> intelligent designer? If you're unwilling to characterize this
>> putative designer in any way, then you're eliminating the possibility
>> that objectively testable hypotheses can ever emerge from your
>> thinking. You're doing apologetics, not science, and you're insuring
>> that your approach can never produce any new knowledge of this or any
>> other universe. It also can't produce any understanding of the
>> intelligent creator, if any such being exists.
>
>You may be missing the irony of your demand here for an "objectively testable hypotheses". That seems to be precisely the problem with the multiverse hypotheses. And, as I've attempted to show at the start of this topic, it's a choice between that and God. Welcome to the age of metaphysics?

I didn't demand that you produce an objectively testable hypothesis. I
noted that, by refusing to characterize the putative designer/creator

you're eliminating the possibility that objectively testable
hypotheses can ever emerge from your thinking.

Although no one has yet come up with ways to definitively test the
existence of a multiverse, the concept may potentially be testable by,
for example, finding signs that our own universe has collided with
another. It did, after all, take one hundred years before Einstein's
prediction of gravity waves could be tested. Your own claim that it's
'a choice between that an God' is, however, false even in principle
unless you define 'God' in terms of potentially observable physical
categories.

What is 'God' and what is 'God' supposed to have done? If you say his
nature and acts of creation are beyond human comprehension, then
you're not offering any kind of real explanation. It's not even a good
metaphysics because it doesn't connect in any way with established
physics. It's just an empty assertion with no explanatory power. It
doesn't generate productive inquiry; it shuts it down.

>From an interview with Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University:
>
>"You were one of the originators of inflation theory. When and why did you start having doubts about it?"
>
>...
>
>"Combine the inflationary multiverse with the string landscape, and now one has a ‘supertheory of anything’: both the cosmological properties and the microphysical properties of the universe are accidental and unpredictable."
>
>...
>
>"'To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.
>Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.
>
>"'My own belief in Jesus Christ is based on personal conviction and experience (non-verifiable of course), the Bible's compelling and coherent story, the testimony of others, the evidence of creation, science, historical data etc etc.'"
>
>http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

Note that Steinhardt has not attempted to explain the creation or
properties of any physical system by invoking the Jesus stories.
Instead he proposed ekpyrotic and cyclic model as an alternate to the
big bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Steinhardt

>Here is an example of historical circumstantial evidence for Christianity (the "Jesus Hypothesis", if you like):
>
>"...professional [secular] New Testament historians, of varying beliefs themselves, many of whom hold the chairs at leading secular universities around the world. All of these scholars agree that there is an irreducible historical core to the resurrection story that cannot be explained away as pious legend or wholesale deceit. Professor Sanders, who warms a seat at the sceptical end of mainstream scholarship, states things plainly: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” This is typical of the secular study of Jesus: something very strange happened, we just don’t quite know what! Put another way, there is a resurrection-shaped ‘dent’ in the historical record."
>
>http://anglicanchurchnoosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Article-re-the-resurrection-by-John-Dickson.pdf

This is, to say the least, unconvincing. It adds nothing to our
understanding of the universe. It's just somebody voicing an
unsupported opinion that 'something very strange happened.' If the
Bible stories are true, then something strange *did* happen. All
graves around Jerusalem, for instance, opened up and zombies walked
the land. But the Romans, who were assiduous detailers of unusual
events and 'marvels' apparently never noticed any of this.

[MarkE]

From scientific data (e.g. abiogenesis, first cause, fine tuning) -> God Hypothesis.

From the Bible (content and uniqueness, internal coherence, textual analysis etc), historical data, convincing reports of miracles, testimonies of individuals, and ultimately personal conviction and experience -> Jesus Hypothesis.

These are largely different categories of knowledge. But say for a moment that Christianity is true. What use will it be to say to the Judge, "But you could not found within my imposed epistemological constraint of methodological naturalism!"?

> Note that Steinhardt has not attempted to explain the creation or
> properties of any physical system by invoking the Jesus stories.
> Instead he proposed ekpyrotic and cyclic model as an alternate to the
> big bang.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Steinhardt

Is it possible that God created? On what basis have you excluded this explanation?

> >Here is an example of historical circumstantial evidence for Christianity (the "Jesus Hypothesis", if you like):
> >
> >"...professional [secular] New Testament historians, of varying beliefs themselves, many of whom hold the chairs at leading secular universities around the world. All of these scholars agree that there is an irreducible historical core to the resurrection story that cannot be explained away as pious legend or wholesale deceit. Professor Sanders, who warms a seat at the sceptical end of mainstream scholarship, states things plainly: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” This is typical of the secular study of Jesus: something very strange happened, we just don’t quite know what! Put another way, there is a resurrection-shaped ‘dent’ in the historical record."
> >
> >http://anglicanchurchnoosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Article-re-the-resurrection-by-John-Dickson.pdf
>
> This is, to say the least, unconvincing. It adds nothing to our
> understanding of the universe. It's just somebody voicing an
> unsupported opinion that 'something very strange happened.' If the
> Bible stories are true, then something strange *did* happen. All
> graves around Jerusalem, for instance, opened up and zombies walked
> the land. But the Romans, who were assiduous detailers of unusual
> events and 'marvels' apparently never noticed any of this.

By itself, it is only a small piece of evidence. I quote it only as illustrative.

[Jimbo]

On Tue, 31 May 2016 00:47:30 -0700 (PDT), MarkE

Since you're not presenting a scientific hypothesis, you need to
explain what you mean when you use the term 'hypothesis.' Are you
trying to present some kind of argument within a system of formal
logic? If so, you still need to define your terms if you want it to
have any reference to physical reality. Another possibility is that
you're using the term colloquially and don't intend to frame your
assertion as a rigorous scientific hypothesis or proposition within a
system of formal logic. In that case it may reflect your sincere
religious faith but it remains an empty assertion with no explanatory
power.

>From the Bible (content and uniqueness, internal coherence, textual analysis etc), historical data, convincing reports of miracles, testimonies of individuals, and ultimately personal conviction and experience -> Jesus Hypothesis.

Once again this reduces to your personal faith. It doesn't remotely
qualify as a scientific hypothesis. An adherent of almost any religion
could make the same sorts of claims with equal conviction. The stories
and descriptions of gods might differ but, insofar as it's based on
traditional narratives, one has no priority over another. They all
have seemed true to groups of believers.

You could attempt to support your claims with something other than
personal faith based on religious narratives, but that would mean
defining 'God' in terms that would allow us to test whether any real
evidence exists for the claims. Thus far you haven't begun to do that.

>These are largely different categories of knowledge. But say for a moment that Christianity is true. What use will it be to say to the Judge, "But you could not found within my imposed epistemological constraint of methodological naturalism!"?

Does the 'Judge' understand that these are different categories of
knowledge? What is the moral basis for a 'judgment that demands one
reject logic and empirical evidence? In claiming that Pascal's wager
has any sort of validity, you're making a sectarian faith-based claim.

But you're asking me to assume for a moment that Christianity is true.
Alright, let's assume that. Now I'm asking you to justify the
Judgment. What moral authority can underlie a demand to reject honesty
and reason? You apparently view faith as an inherent virtue - so long
as it's faith in the particular doctrines you believe are true - but
where is the virtue in a demand that one reject real evidence and
reason?

<snip>

[Burkhard]

I'd like to see the methodology for that. How many secular NT historians
are there to start with? And what percentage of the total number of
historians of that period do they make up, and what is the attitude in
this wider group? Were historians outside historically Christian
countries included etc etc

around the world. All of these scholars agree that there is an
irreducible historical core to the resurrection story that cannot be
explained away as pious legend or wholesale deceit. Professor Sanders,
who warms a seat at the sceptical end of mainstream scholarship, states
things plainly: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection
experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave
rise to the experiences I do not know.” This is typical of the secular
study of Jesus: something very strange happened, we just don’t quite
know what! Put another way, there is a resurrection-shaped ‘dent’ in the
historical record."
>

Not really. What he seems to argue is that the early followers of Christ
were genuinely convinced of the resurrection. But given how many
unusual things people have been genuinely believing through the
millennia, that is really not that surprising or unusual - if accepted
for the sake of the argument. I'm perfectly certain the majority of
folks who report Aliens or Elvis are equally sincere in their report of
their experience.


> http://anglicanchurchnoosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Article-re-the-resurrection-by-John-Dickson.pdf
>

[MarkE]

Are you saying that Christian belief requires one to reject honesty and reason?

[Bill Rogers]

Christian belief * if arrived at via Pascal's Wager* does indeed require one to reject honesty and reason.

[Jimbo]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT), MarkE

No. I'm asking you to justify an act of 'judgment (or 'Judgment) that
would, for example, condemn people to eternal punishment for arriving
at an honest and reasonable opinion that the Jesus stories are largely
myth. I gave you an example of one of many inconsistencies and
absurdities in these stories: the claim that on the day of Jesus's
crucifixion, graves opened up and the dead walked the land. Have I
somehow committed a grave moral offense by noting that the Romans
would have noticed any such unprecedented and incredible event if it
had actually occurred? What is the moral basis for condemning people
for arriving at conclusions that such tales are just myths - like
thousands of non-Christian myths that describe equally incredible
events?

[Kalkidas]

I agree. Love cannot arise from the threat of punishment.

[Steady Eddie]

I agree whole-heartedly.

[MarkE]

> > > >These are largely different categories of knowledge. But say for a moment that Christianity is true. What use will it be to say to the Judge, "But you could not found within my imposed epistemological constraint of methodological naturalism!"?
> > >
> > > Does the 'Judge' understand that these are different categories of
> > > knowledge? What is the moral basis for a 'judgment that demands one
> > > reject logic and empirical evidence? In claiming that Pascal's wager
> > > has any sort of validity, you're making a sectarian faith-based claim.
> > >
> > > But you're asking me to assume for a moment that Christianity is true.
> > > Alright, let's assume that. Now I'm asking you to justify the
> > > Judgment. What moral authority can underlie a demand to reject honesty
> > > and reason? You apparently view faith as an inherent virtue - so long
> > > as it's faith in the particular doctrines you believe are true - but
> > > where is the virtue in a demand that one reject real evidence and
> > > reason?
> >
> > Are you saying that Christian belief requires one to reject honesty and reason?
>
> Christian belief * if arrived at via Pascal's Wager* does indeed require one to reject honesty and reason.

Pascal's Wager is an argument to consider God. It does not lead to Christian belief any more than considering why apples fall leads to a career in astrophysics.

My point was, as I've said elsewhere, on what basis do you presume that methodological naturalism is the only epistemological game in town?

[Bill Rogers]

OK, but I never needed the fear of Hell to make me consider belief in God. Pascal's Wager makes a mockery of faith.

>
> My point was, as I've said elsewhere, on what basis do you presume that methodological naturalism is the only epistemological game in town?

It works. It provides a method for resolving disagreements. Subjective epistemologies are fine as long as you don't need to convince anyone else you are correct about anything other than your personal point of view. The most you can do is say something like "Try believing this - it will make your life better." I don't really have an objection to that, and it's certainly not open to refutation.

[MarkE]

I do say to people, "I urge you to consider..."

And science points to God. And God loves you. And there will be day of judgement.

To believe this to be true and be silent would be unloving, wouldn't it? And if I'm wrong, and we are only meaningless temporal aggregations of atoms, no harm done.

[Bill Rogers]

You are slipping away from Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a game theoretic calculation telling you to accept Christianity because the expected pay-off for rejecting Christianity (even if you assess its probability of being true as very low) is a very small probability times an infinitely negative result, which is still an infinitely negative result. It's based entirely on fear and self-interested calculation.

There are far, far better reasons to investigate Christianity. If it is true, it is wonderful. If it is true you are a key part of the whole drama of creation. If it is true you are infinitely and unconditionally loved by an ideal parent. If it is true death is not the end. If it is true, there is no need to be afraid of anything at all. If it is true, you are completely free simply to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. If it is true all the beautiful Christian art and music and literature is not simply a lovely cultural artifact, but is also deeply true. If it's true, there's no downside - "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

There's something petty and unworthy, when there are all these excellent reasons to investigate Christianity, about appealing to fear and self-interest. Especially since the folks you are appealing to start from a position of not believing that there's anything there to fear. So, petty, unworthy, and ineffective.

>
> To believe this to be true and be silent would be unloving, wouldn't it?

I understand that for many evangelical Christians it is a heavy burden to go around thinking that their friends who have not accepted Jesus are all going to Hell. I don't doubt the sincerity of that concern, but there's nothing I can do about it.

>And if I'm wrong, and we are only meaningless temporal aggregations of atoms, no harm done.

If you're wrong we are all meant to be servants of Allah and his prophet.

Oops, I meant, if you're wrong we are temporal aggregations of atom who, remarkably for someone who disdains mere natural matter, are able to find meaning in their own existence.

[Jimbo]

If you believe that you are prompted by love to proclaim a living
truth, do you consider it inappropriate, for other people to ask you
to clarify the basis for your beliefs and claims? You state that
science points to God, but thus far have ignored my requests that you
clarify your basis for this claim.

You presented me with Pascal's Wager and urged me to consider the
terrible prospect of making the wrong choice and thereby subjecting
myself to the horrors of Judgment and condemnation, but then you
ignored my request that you clarify the moral basis underlying such
condemnation. I asked "Where is the virtue in a demand that one reject
real evidence and reason." You responded by asking "Are you saying

that Christian belief requires one to reject honesty and reason?"

Then you ignored my response that I was asking you to clarify your
position rather than making a claim. In particular I mentioned the
Biblical Jesus story in which it's claimed that the graves opened up
on the day of Jesus's crucifixion and the dead walked the land. Since
you claim that science points to God - and apparently to the Christian
God - isn't my question entirely relevant and appropriate? Why do you
think it credible that the Romans didn't notice an event that they
surely would have noticed if it had really occurred?

It seems to me that you're unwilling to inquire into the moral and
factual basis for your own beliefs and epistemology. Yet you continue
to claim that there is a rational and factual basis supported by
science. That claim just seems really dodgy when you won't examine
deeply the basis for your own beliefs.

[Wm. Esque]

But, it doesn't! I, for example, was a Christian long before I heard of
Pascals wager. All it (pascal's wager) means is that there is no risk in
belief in god when contrasted with atheism.

God exist or he doesn't exist. If he exist then he promised life after
death to the believer according to the Bible.
1] If god does exist, then the believer has life after death, according
to the promise, the unbeliever does not.
2] If god does not exist, then the believer and the non-believer are
equally without the promise of life.

One might ask which faith, or which god, what if you chose the wrong
god. This might have some meaning for the non-believer, but for the
believer it's a non issue; for Jews and Christian believers there is
only one God. So, which god is a moot question.

[John Harshman]

I'm afraid that was clueless on at least two levels. First, you have
ignored the bit between the asterisks. Does he have to go to ALL CAPS
just to make sure you read the important bits? Second, you ignore the
point that the binary choice is naive.

> God exist or he doesn't exist.

This assumes that your god is the only god we have to think about. On
what basis do you get to ignore all the other claimed gods?

> If he exist then he promised life after
> death to the believer according to the Bible.

That's one particular god out of many.

> 1] If god does exist, then the believer has life after death, according
> to the promise, the unbeliever does not.

That's one particular god out of many, and it's true if by "does not"
you refer to eternal torment in Hell.

> 2] If god does not exist, then the believer and the non-believer are
> equally without the promise of life.
>
> One might ask which faith, or which god, what if you chose the wrong
> god. This might have some meaning for the non-believer, but for the
> believer it's a non issue; for Jews and Christian believers there is
> only one God. So, which god is a moot question.

Ah, but the god of the Jews is functionally a different god, as he
doesn't demand salvation through Jesus. If Pascal chooses Judaism and
god is the Christian god, he loses his wager. Not to mention all the
other various gods believed in by millions worldwide who make different
sorts of demands and offer different sorts of rewards and punishments,
and whom you ignore without justification other than "I don't believe in
those gods". Clinging to the original formulation of Pascal's wager is
clear evidence that you have indeed rejected honesty and reason.

[Ernest Major]

The implied threat in your 3rd sentence contradicts your 2nd sentence.

Furthermore, you haven't succeeded in convincing anyone here of the
truth of your 1st sentence.

>
> To believe this to be true and be silent would be unloving, wouldn't it? And if I'm wrong, and we are only meaningless temporal aggregations of atoms, no harm done.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 03/06/2016 16:32, Bill Rogers wrote:
> You are slipping away from Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a game theoretic calculation telling you to accept Christianity because the expected pay-off for rejecting Christianity (even if you assess its probability of being true as very low) is a very small probability times an infinitely negative result, which is still an infinitely negative result. It's based entirely on fear and self-interested calculation.

As I understand the situation, although Pascal's Wager is almost always
used as an argument for belief Pascal wasn't so stupid, and only used it
as an argument for investigation, which reduces the number of flaws by
at least one.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill Rogers]

Sure, so your faith was not arrived at via Pascal's Wager.

>All it (pascal's wager) means is that there is no risk in
> belief in god when contrasted with atheism.

That may be all it means to someone who already believes. But as a method to get someone to believe in the first place it's an argument that the cost of *not believing* is potentially infinite and that one should therefore believe.

>
> God exist or he doesn't exist. If he exist then he promised life after
> death to the believer according to the Bible.
> 1] If god does exist, then the believer has life after death, according
> to the promise, the unbeliever does not.
> 2] If god does not exist, then the believer and the non-believer are
> equally without the promise of life.
>
> One might ask which faith, or which god, what if you chose the wrong
> god. This might have some meaning for the non-believer, but for the
> believer it's a non issue; for Jews and Christian believers there is
> only one God. So, which god is a moot question.

Exactly, Pascal's Wager is inoffensive, even trivial, when addressed to somebody who already believes. It's a piss poor argument for someone who doesn't believe, though.

[Steven Carlip]

On 6/3/16 10:57 AM, Wm. Esque wrote:

[...]

> One might ask which faith, or which god, what if you chose the wrong
> god. This might have some meaning for the non-believer, but for the
> believer it's a non issue; for Jews and Christian believers there is
> only one God. So, which god is a moot question.

Because believers can never question or examine their beliefs or
change their minds?

[Wm. Esque]

Yes, they can, there is nothing that tells then they cannot examine
or question their beliefs. And ofttimes they become non-believers.
In fact, I would suggest that believers more frequently question their
beliefs than atheist question their atheism. This is borne out by the
frequency of believers rejecting theism, compared with the frequency of
atheist who reject atheism.
Of course, one may say yes, but we atheist are rational, logical and
thinking entities so, there's no need to question or analyze our
position, but this is pure unadulterated sophistry.
>

[MarkE]

Jimbo, I have limited time to respond here, and in these threads it's mostly me vs everyone else, so I opt for quality over coverage.

A problem here I think is a fear of being seen to break ranks, and a desire to publicly slam any counter argument. Some fun, humour and friendliness despite strong differences would be a bonus.

I'm looking to engage with people who are willing to put aside constant point scoring and tease open an argument and its nuances, acknowledge strengths and weakness of both sides, etc. To enjoy ideas and beliefs and new understanding.

The tone and content of your responses give me little confidence that you are offering this. Which is a pity, because your questions are in an area I'd like to discuss.

Apologies if I've misjudged your intent. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[MarkE]

> > I do say to people, "I urge you to consider..."
> >
> > And science points to God. And God loves you. And there will be day of judgement.
>
> You are slipping away from Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a game theoretic calculation telling you to accept Christianity because the expected pay-off for rejecting Christianity (even if you assess its probability of being true as very low) is a very small probability times an infinitely negative result, which is still an infinitely negative result. It's based entirely on fear and self-interested calculation.

Well summarised. I agree that the wager is a calculation related to self-interest. The question is, how/does that fit into the full doctrine of Christianity, which you also outline rather nicely below from your past experience.

> There are far, far better reasons to investigate Christianity. If it is true, it is wonderful. If it is true you are a key part of the whole drama of creation. If it is true you are infinitely and unconditionally loved by an ideal parent. If it is true death is not the end. If it is true, there is no need to be afraid of anything at all. If it is true, you are completely free simply to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. If it is true all the beautiful Christian art and music and literature is not simply a lovely cultural artifact, but is also deeply true. If it's true, there's no downside - "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."
>
> There's something petty and unworthy, when there are all these excellent reasons to investigate Christianity, about appealing to fear and self-interest. Especially since the folks you are appealing to start from a position of not believing that there's anything there to fear. So, petty, unworthy, and ineffective.

The heart of Christianity is love. The disciple John writes, "God is love". Jesus sums up the law and prophets as two rules: Love God with your whole being, and love others as you love yourself.

Conversion is to repent and believe. What would would cause a person to repent, to turn from their sin and self-rule, to receive forgiveness from God, and submit to his rule in their life?

Love? Yes. A response of gratitude and worship to God's grace, goodness and worthiness? Yes. Fear of judgment and hell? That as well:

Jesus: "I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:3)

"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32)

Jesus: :For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

> > To believe this to be true and be silent would be unloving, wouldn't it?
>
> I understand that for many evangelical Christians it is a heavy burden to go around thinking that their friends who have not accepted Jesus are all going to Hell. I don't doubt the sincerity of that concern, but there's nothing I can do about it.
>
> >And if I'm wrong, and we are only meaningless temporal aggregations of atoms, no harm done.
>
> If you're wrong we are all meant to be servants of Allah and his prophet.
>
> Oops, I meant, if you're wrong we are temporal aggregations of atom who, remarkably for someone who disdains mere natural matter, are able to find meaning in their own existence.

:) Valid point, the Christian choice is not risk-free as such - I did overlook the mutually exclusive theistic alternatives.

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 00:48:10 -0400, "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com>
wrote:

You're absolutely correct, that such a statement is sophistry, as is
your implication that it's commonly, or even distinctively, used by
atheists.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Burkhard]

But if this is your answer, you have a contradiction to the assumed low
probability of the existence of any god that underpins the argument. So
if you already hold a high probability that a specific deity exists,
then you have (at least) the same probability that any deity exists, and
thus the wager becomes irrelevant for you.

The wager tries to make you commit to a choice in the absence of any
such certainty - and that also means that you should be (at least)
equally uncertain about the existence of all sorts of deities, including
those that punish you more for believing in a competitor deity than any
deity at all, or punish you for believing in them because of the wager,
etc etc - so it is a very risky choice.


>

[Jonathan]

I see you've taken the position that since there are
many definitions of God, the concept no longer makes
sense, is that correct?

So then, tell me, since Wiki identifies 26 different
definitions of the word species, does that destroy
the idea of evolution?

Or is your logic only limited to self serving applications?


s

[Jonathan]

Are you an atheist?

Don't you realize that being alive and aware defines
the absolute pinnacle of the known universe?
And by extension defines the notion of Heaven
at the same time?

This is Heaven, we are already there.

Good, bad or indifferent this is what Heaven is like
and every day in another step in The Garden.

The ultimate source of our creation stands
outside this universe and will forever be
beyond our direct knowledge. But whatever
the source it's gifts are worthy of reverence
and deserve a suitable name.

Is that little show of gratitude too much
to ask for such a reward as life?




s

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 1:44:26 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > I do say to people, "I urge you to consider..."
> > >
> > > And science points to God. And God loves you. And there will be day of judgement.
> >
> > You are slipping away from Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a game theoretic calculation telling you to accept Christianity because the expected pay-off for rejecting Christianity (even if you assess its probability of being true as very low) is a very small probability times an infinitely negative result, which is still an infinitely negative result. It's based entirely on fear and self-interested calculation.
>
> Well summarised. I agree that the wager is a calculation related to self-interest. The question is, how/does that fit into the full doctrine of Christianity, which you also outline rather nicely below from your past experience.
>
> > There are far, far better reasons to investigate Christianity. If it is true, it is wonderful. If it is true you are a key part of the whole drama of creation. If it is true you are infinitely and unconditionally loved by an ideal parent. If it is true death is not the end. If it is true, there is no need to be afraid of anything at all. If it is true, you are completely free simply to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. If it is true all the beautiful Christian art and music and literature is not simply a lovely cultural artifact, but is also deeply true. If it's true, there's no downside - "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."
> >
> > There's something petty and unworthy, when there are all these excellent reasons to investigate Christianity, about appealing to fear and self-interest. Especially since the folks you are appealing to start from a position of not believing that there's anything there to fear. So, petty, unworthy, and ineffective.
>
> The heart of Christianity is love. The disciple John writes, "God is love". Jesus sums up the law and prophets as two rules: Love God with your whole being, and love others as you love yourself.
>
> Conversion is to repent and believe. What would would cause a person to repent, to turn from their sin and self-rule, to receive forgiveness from God, and submit to his rule in their life?
>
> Love? Yes. A response of gratitude and worship to God's grace, goodness and worthiness? Yes. Fear of judgment and hell? That as well:
>
> Jesus: "I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:3)
>
> "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32)
>
> Jesus: :For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

Jesus' calls for repentance and conversion were mostly (maybe entirely) directed to people who already believed in God. His strongest threats of Hell were reserved for the ostentatiously and self-righteously religious. He generally did not run into people who simply did not believe there was a God at all.

You are not in the same situation when you deal with people who just plain don't believe in God, and the sorts of exhortations Jesus used with people who believed in God but had chosen non-virtuous lives (tax collectors and prostitutes) or who were uncharitably self-righteous (scribes and Pharisees), don't mean much to people who don't believe in God at all.

The closest Jesus came to converting an atheist in the Gospels was the cases of the Roman centurions, the one with the sick daughter Jesus healed, and the one who witnessed the crucifixion and said "Truly this was the Son of God." In neither case did Jesus threaten them with Hell. In both cases it as simply Jesus' charisma that did the trick (well, that and a miracle or two). And this assumes they were atheists to begin with - not impossible since philosophical atheism was fairly widespread in the Roman Empire in the first century, but it was mostly among the educated classes, not the soldiers and other ordinary folks, so even these examples may not be on point.

The greatest conversion story in the New Testament is the Damascus Road conversion of Saul. He wasn't an atheist. He was virulently religious and deeply concerned about following the Mosaic Law. As much as young American evangelicals may like to recast their pre-conversion life histories into a Damascus Road narrative, the case of Saul is really very unlike the conversion of an atheist.

The Good News is only Good News if you already believe in the Bad News (that there's a God and that you are out of His good graces). I don't think the New Testament gives you many examples of how to address atheists effectively.

[John Harshman]

No.

> So then, tell me, since Wiki identifies 26 different
> definitions of the word species, does that destroy
> the idea of evolution?

No.

> Or is your logic only limited to self serving applications?

If you want to make up both sides of an argument, I don't see why you
need me.

Now, if you want to follow my actual argument, you should probably read
it first. The subject here is Pascal's wager, which works only if there
is a binary choice between no god and some particular god. If there are
multiple potential gods, each of which wants something different from
you, it's no longer a choice with no potential downside.

This is not an argument in favor of atheism; it's an argument against
Pascal's wager. Now do you understand?

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 06:43:58 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Have you stopped beating your wife? Of course, only atheists would
remark about such a blatant strawman as that posted above.

>Don't you realize that being alive and aware defines
>the absolute pinnacle of the known universe?
>And by extension defines the notion of Heaven
>at the same time?
>
>This is Heaven, we are already there.
>
>Good, bad or indifferent this is what Heaven is like
>and every day in another step in The Garden.
>
>The ultimate source of our creation stands
>outside this universe and will forever be
>beyond our direct knowledge. But whatever
>the source it's gifts are worthy of reverence
>and deserve a suitable name.
>
>Is that little show of gratitude too much
>to ask for such a reward as life?

Please stop shoplifting your replies from Non Sequiturs "R" Us.

[Wm. Esque]

On 6/4/2016 2:03 AM, jillery wrote:

You'll find that in churches today, both Protestant and Catholic, people
are leaving in droves. Most Churches membership today is primarily
middle aged to elderly people. Pews are being emptied,
church doors are being closed.

So, this fact demonstrates that, far from constant criticism

of Christians, by some of not questioning and challenging their beliefs,

the evidence proves they are. It's the atheist who do not seem to be

challenging or questioning their atheism.



I did not say what you stated above so, the conclusion about

the "statement being sophistry" is your conclusion.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:Ao6dnfvOheUiUs_K...@giganews.com...

Define "work" in this context.

>only if there
> is a binary choice between no god and some particular god. If there are
> multiple potential gods, each of which wants something different from
> you, it's no longer a choice with no potential downside.
>

How do you know that?

> This is not an argument in favor of atheism; it's an argument against
> Pascal's wager. Now do you understand?
>

I understand you.

[Glenn]

"Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote in message news:SAC4z.563717$z22.5...@fx36.am4...

You wouldn't know a fact from an onion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance

And the decline has no clear or single reason.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/3/16 10:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
>
> The heart of Christianity is love.

That's the claim. Were it reality, I would still be a Christian.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Jimbo]

I probably won't ever qualify as an ideal correspondent from your
point of view, and no one can force you to respond to posts that you
perceive as boorish and obstinately close-minded. My responses to you
have indeed lacked somewhat in humor and congeniality. But I am
perfectly willing to "tease open an argument and its nuances,
acknowledge strengths and weakness of both sides etc."

I recognize that you don't perceive my posts as reflective of such an
attitude. I may have seemed to unfairly dismiss your
counter-arguments, as when I bluntly stated that, although you were
applying the term "hypothesis" to your assertions, you hadn't actually
presented any scientific hypotheses. I also asked you to clarify your
understanding of the morality underlying Pascal's Wager. Wasn't that a
natural, relevant and *important* question to ask when you challenged
me with the Wager? You say my questions are in an area you would like
to discuss, but that you are put-off by "the tone and content" of my
responses.

You come across as intelligent and likeable - a pleasant person to be
around. Bill Rogers has engaged you in several interesting and polite
conversations, pointing out certain logical and factual errors you've
made but without pressing you to defend the underlying bases of your
claims. He is a gentleman. His approach is no doubt more effective
than mine, but if you seriously intend to defend your assertion that
science supports your religious beliefs, then you should be prepared
to deal with heathens like me. You doubtless will perceive me as
close-minded and confrontational when I say it, but you have not
seriously engaged with issues that you, yourself, have raised.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 00:48:10 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com>:

>On 6/4/2016 12:26 AM, Steven Carlip wrote:

>> On 6/3/16 10:57 AM, Wm. Esque wrote:

>>> One might ask which faith, or which god, what if you chose the wrong
>>> god. This might have some meaning for the non-believer, but for the
>>> believer it's a non issue; for Jews and Christian believers there is
>>> only one God. So, which god is a moot question.

>> Because believers can never question or examine their beliefs or
>> change their minds?

>Yes, they can, there is nothing that tells then they cannot examine
>or question their beliefs.

Pedant point: There *may* be nothing in their religious
texts which specifically says they can't (IIRC the Quran
*does* say it), but Christian authorities have also taken
that position in the past (the terms were "apostate" or
"heretic", depending on the situation), and conviction was a
bit hazardous to one's health. Sometines it didn't even
require conviction; the charge alone could suffice.

> And ofttimes they become non-believers.
>In fact, I would suggest that believers more frequently question their
>beliefs than atheist question their atheism. This is borne out by the
>frequency of believers rejecting theism, compared with the frequency of
>atheist who reject atheism.
>Of course, one may say yes, but we atheist are rational, logical and
>thinking entities so, there's no need to question or analyze our
>position, but this is pure unadulterated sophistry.

Not really; declining to believe in something for which no
objective evidence exists is both rational and logical.
Faith is neither, but since faith is orthogonal to science
it needn't be either.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Jonathan]

So you equate atheism with wife beating?
It was a simple question, can't you handle
even that? I can't tell from your so called
responses what you believe, if anything.

> Of course, only atheists would
> remark about such a blatant strawman as that posted above.
>

You're delusional, my post was a straight up question
and comment. Can't you engage in conversation about
anything or is bickering all you can do?

[Steven Carlip]

On 6/3/16 9:48 PM, Wm. Esque wrote:
> On 6/4/2016 12:26 AM, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> On 6/3/16 10:57 AM, Wm. Esque wrote:

>> [...]
>>> One might ask which faith, or which god, what if you chose the wrong
>>> god. This might have some meaning for the non-believer, but for the
>>> believer it's a non issue; for Jews and Christian believers there is
>>> only one God. So, which god is a moot question.

>> Because believers can never question or examine their beliefs or
>> change their minds?

> Yes, they can, there is nothing that tells then they cannot examine

> or question their beliefs. \

Then the question of which faith, or which god, isn't moot, is it?

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 18:51:09 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

Apparently my answer has too many words in it for you to understand.
Is anybody surprised?

>It was a simple question, can't you handle
>even that? I can't tell from your so called
>responses what you believe, if anything.
>
>
>
>> Of course, only atheists would
>> remark about such a blatant strawman as that posted above.
>>
>
>
>You're delusional, my post was a straight up question
>and comment. Can't you engage in conversation about
>anything or is bickering all you can do?

Feel free to explain how your "straight-up question" has any relevance
to my post or the post to which I replied. Failing that is just more
evidence you're still blowing smoke out of your puckered sphincter.

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 11:39:39 -0400, "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com>

That may be evidence of questioning. Or it may evidence of
indifference. How do you tell the difference?

>So, this fact demonstrates that, far from constant criticism
>
>of Christians, by some of not questioning and challenging their beliefs,
>
>the evidence proves they are.
>
>It's the atheist who do not seem to be
>
>challenging or questioning their atheism.

Of course, whether your conclusions above are correct or not, they
have absolutely nothing to do with the strawman you posted.

>I did not say what you stated above so, the conclusion about
>
>the "statement being sophistry" is your conclusion.

And I did not say you said what you stated above. Instead, I
explicitly said your statement *implies* what I said, so your pedantic
objection is pedantically mooted.

And if what I said your statement implies isn't what you meant, then
one can only wonder what's your point in posting it.

[MarkE]

That response helps, thanks for making it. The upside of forum discussion is there it gives the precision of written of argument, and time to think. The downside is, it's impersonal, and exchanges easily overheat or dig in. These things are perhaps best discussed over coffee or a beer.

My purpose in these topics has been to test out (dare I say evolve?) arguments of first cause, fine tuning, abiogenesis. Offering a developed presentation or hypothesis for Christianity is really another topic, and something I've only incidentally mentioned here.

My quick review:

- first cause - defenders like Sean Carroll are seem to fall back to speculative explanations such as the eternal existence of a quantum field and the laws of physics, saying these need no beginning. It remains a significant creationist argument IMO.

- fine tuning - Somewhat to my surprise, I've learnt that fine tuning is increasingly accepted and with that, the multiverse as the only known naturalistic solution. If a multiverse cannot be empirically verified, then both sides are arguing in the realm of metaphysics.

- abiogenesis - Their seems to be less confidence in the RNA World hypothesis now for various reasons, and it seems to be the head and shoulders the best option. I find this one personally compelling as an engineer and designer, with consideration of the potentially very high minimal complexity and functionality of a viable, metabolising, self-replicating structure before natural selection can operate (beyond naked RNA).

When people on the street say they believe in science instead of God, I feel I can offer these, with some personal conviction, as "please consider" arguments. I qualify them as subject to revision in science, and acknowledge dissenting interpretations.

How would you rate each of these, at least relatively?

[Bill Rogers]

I don't think First Cause gets you much of anywhere. Explanations end somewhere or it's turtles all the way down. It bothers you that someone would say "The quantum field *just is*" but it does not bother you to say "God just is." Why is the one in need of further explanation and not the other?

If you get to God as a First Cause, then all you can say about God is what the effects are, a big universe made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter, with a little bit of conventional matter, and within that conventional matter a tiny fraction existing as planets capable of supporting life. The only characteristic you can infer of such a God is that He wanted the universe to come out just the way it did. It really adds nothing to what you learn just by studying the universe.

>
> - fine tuning - Somewhat to my surprise, I've learnt that fine tuning is increasingly accepted and with that, the multiverse as the only known naturalistic solution. If a multiverse cannot be empirically verified, then both sides are arguing in the realm of metaphysics.

I'd say that fine-tuning is still fairly controversial, and that it remains very possible that empirical tests will be possible, and somewhat possible that a physical explanation for the values of the putatively fine-tuned constants will be found.

>
> - abiogenesis - Their seems to be less confidence in the RNA World hypothesis now for various reasons, and it seems to be the head and shoulders the best option. I find this one personally compelling as an engineer and designer, with consideration of the potentially very high minimal complexity and functionality of a viable, metabolising, self-replicating structure before natural selection can operate (beyond naked RNA).

There's more to the science of the origin of life than the simplest version of "RNA first." It's a difficult subject, not least because it requires bringing together bits of chemistry, physical chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, and geochemistry which are not central to most basic course in chemistry and biochemistry. And the arguments that "It couldn't have happened" are based on extremely naive models of the origin of life which nobody in the field proposes in the first place.

>
> When people on the street say they believe in science instead of God, I feel I can offer these, with some personal conviction, as "please consider" arguments. I qualify them as subject to revision in science, and acknowledge dissenting interpretations.

It's good to be open to future revision. Instead of making a theological argument which is dependent on how some scientific question turns out, I'd just argue that science simply describes the way the world works and that the world is God's creation, no matter how it turns out. A detailed, entirely well-documented and supported naturalistic pathway for the origin of life would simply testify to how marvelous are the laws of physics which God created. I think you need to side-step entirely any arguments based on how some scientific question turns out. Presumably you would not think that a naturalistic explanation for the values of the physical constants or the origin of life would rule out God. If that's the case, the current lack of such an explanation does not help you rule in God, either.

[Ernest Major]

On 06/06/2016 13:08, Bill Rogers wrote:
> If you get to God as a First Cause, then all you can say about God is what the effects are, a big universe made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter, with a little bit of conventional matter, and within that conventional matter a tiny fraction existing as planets capable of supporting life. The only characteristic you can infer of such a God is that He wanted the universe to come out just the way it did. It really adds nothing to what you learn just by studying the universe.

I don't think that it gets you even that far. The assumption that a
universogene had an intention is just an assumption, and so is the
assumption that a universogene is capable of predicting the outcome of
the universe.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill Rogers]

I suppose I was agreeing with a hypothetical "natural theology" theist, for the sake of argument, that the First Cause was some sort of person with intentions. Only for the sake of argument, though.



> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Jimbo]

Thank you for the courteous reply. I see that Bill Rogers has already
responded to your review and I can't, in a reasonably sized post, add
anything to his points. I agree with what he said. So, rather than
addressing your arguments one-by-one, I'd like to consider a question
of epistemology: the question of how or whether we can determine which
is the more valid of two competing claims.

Steven Carlip, in your 'unusual request' thread, has pointed that we
can't calculate valid probabilities for the values of various
universal constants unless we know the range through which they could
possibly vary. We don't have that knowledge and so can't calculate
such probabilities. Therefore claims about the vast improbability of
our universe can't be scientifically justified. Multiverse theories
can account for apparent fine-tuning, but no direct evidence of other
universes has yet been found so they can't be scientifically validated
either.

Does this mean that it's scientifically valid to claim a particular
religious tradition is a plausible alternate explanation for phenomena
that scientists explain with theories of cosmology, abiogenesis and
evolution? You've stated clearly enough that you believe this to be
the case, but you also rule out an examination of the underlying bases
for your faith. You say that it's an unrelated topic. I view that as a
fundamentally invalid claim within the framework of scientific
epistemology.

It's comparable to the claim made by certain classical Greek
philosophers that the laws of the universe can be deduced from
unquestioned underlying axioms. Their approach quite often provided no
real understanding of physical systems. It was a step up from simple
unquestioned mythology, but it wasn't science as we know it today. Am
I, then, being overly confrontational when I ask you to inquire deeply
into your own beliefs and epistemology?

Science has no set of unquestionable beliefs - no beliefs that must be
taken on faith. This makes possible the revolutions in thought and
paradigm changes that distinguish the history of science. Science is
constantly transforming itself, and at times this transformation
extends very deep, as when relativity and quantum mechanics
revolutionized our way of looking at physical reality. Are you willing
to play in this arena?

I wouldn't ask such a question if you were merely stating your
beliefs. You have a right to do so. Those beliefs may be deeply
meaningful to you and hint at truths that science has not explored.
But you're claiming that science supports your particular religious
tradition. That implies that science supports the truth of ancient and
unverifiable accounts of events that include descriptions of
'miracles.' You can't justifiably say that you want to "tease open an

argument and its nuances, acknowledge strengths and weakness of both

sides etc.," but then rule out inquiry into the nature of the
concepts, logic and evidence underlying your claims.

This is especially troublesome in that you claim 'reports of miracles'
as one of the types of evidence upon which you base your claim. I
cited the Biblical account of the graves around Jerusalem opening up
and the dead emerging on the day of Jesus's crucifixion as a very
dubious Biblical claim. It's relevant because, if it had actually
occurred, the Romans would certainly have noticed it and sent the news
back to Augustus, who was very interested in anomalous events. This
constitutes an independent check on the validity of the claim and
would strongly suggest that at least some elements of the Christian
Gospels are not factually accurate. You may perceive the very mention
of this as confrontational, but it's in response to your own claims
that science supports your beliefs. So I repeat: you haven't yet
seriously addressed issues that you need to address in order to
justify your claim that science supports these beliefs.

[Öö Tiib]

Is it somehow more likely that we are the start, the first turtles whose cause
is mindless eternal quantum field and now from us there will be turtles all
the way up? Or are we just casual phenomena that did last for couple
centuries and will disappear after few again?

>
> If you get to God as a First Cause, then all you can say about God is what
> the effects are, a big universe made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter,
> with a little bit of conventional matter, and within that conventional matter a
> tiny fraction existing as planets capable of supporting life. The only
> characteristic you can infer of such a God is that He wanted the universe to
> come out just the way it did. It really adds nothing to what you learn just by
> studying the universe.

Are you really saying that if someone (alleged to be unimaginably wise,
intelligent and experienced) made it all purposefully then that adds nothing
to what we can possibly learn by studying it? It can be so but how it follows?

>
> >
> > - fine tuning - Somewhat to my surprise, I've learnt that fine tuning is
> > increasingly accepted and with that, the multiverse as the only known
> > naturalistic solution. If a multiverse cannot be empirically verified, then
> > both sides are arguing in the realm of metaphysics.
>
> I'd say that fine-tuning is still fairly controversial, and that it remains very
> possible that empirical tests will be possible, and somewhat possible that
> a physical explanation for the values of the putatively fine-tuned
> constants will be found.

Our lack of knowledge allows even constantness of those "constants" to be
dubious. There are some inhomogeneous cosmological models where those
"fine-tuned constants" are not constants at all.

>
> >
> > - abiogenesis - Their seems to be less confidence in the RNA World
> > hypothesis now for various reasons, and it seems to be the head and
> > shoulders the best option. I find this one personally compelling as an
> > engineer and designer, with consideration of the potentially very high
> > minimal complexity and functionality of a viable, metabolising,
> > self-replicating structure before natural selection can operate (beyond
> > naked RNA).
>
> There's more to the science of the origin of life than the simplest version
> of "RNA first." It's a difficult subject, not least because it requires
> bringing together bits of chemistry, physical chemistry, organic and
> inorganic chemistry, and geochemistry which are not central to most
> basic course in chemistry and biochemistry. And the arguments that
> "It couldn't have happened" are based on extremely naive models of
> the origin of life which nobody in the field proposes in the first place.

Isn't correct scientific position about origin of life that we have some
ideas but we do not know it?

>
> >
> > When people on the street say they believe in science instead of God,
> > I feel I can offer these, with some personal conviction, as "please
> > consider" arguments. I qualify them as subject to revision in science,
> > and acknowledge dissenting interpretations.
>
> It's good to be open to future revision. Instead of making a theological
> argument which is dependent on how some scientific question turns
> out, I'd just argue that science simply describes the way the world
> works and that the world is God's creation, no matter how it turns out.

Science is knowledge how the world actually works. "And yet it moves."
Findings of science should be so regardless of what we want to believe.

> A detailed, entirely well-documented and supported naturalistic
> pathway for the origin of life would simply testify to how marvelous
> are the laws of physics which God created. I think you need to
> side-step entirely any arguments based on how some scientific
> question turns out. Presumably you would not think that a
> naturalistic explanation for the values of the physical constants
> or the origin of life would rule out God. If that's the case, the
> current lack of such an explanation does not help you rule in God,
> either.

That is all speculation? All above are just hypotheses plus beliefs.
IOW it may be that abiogenesis is such thanks to God and it may
also be that abiogenesis is impossible *and* that also God does
not exist.

[MarkE]

> >
> > My quick review:
> >
> > - first cause - defenders like Sean Carroll are seem to fall back to speculative explanations such as the eternal existence of a quantum field and the laws of physics, saying these need no beginning. It remains a significant creationist argument IMO.
>
> I don't think First Cause gets you much of anywhere. Explanations end somewhere or it's turtles all the way down. It bothers you that someone would say "The quantum field *just is*" but it does not bother you to say "God just is." Why is the one in need of further explanation and not the other?

I question the ability of the speculated quantum field to produce a universe, and that after an eternity past. Unless it's been coughing them up for an eternity?

The question of God choosing to create "now" is not the same problem. (Though both are mind bending, dealing with an infinite "past").

> If you get to God as a First Cause, then all you can say about God is what the effects are, a big universe made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter, with a little bit of conventional matter, and within that conventional matter a tiny fraction existing as planets capable of supporting life. The only characteristic you can infer of such a God is that He wanted the universe to come out just the way it did. It really adds nothing to what you learn just by studying the universe.

Getting to God (even if yielding little or no extra info) is all that is needed to enable people in principle to clear their perceived science roadblock. Which is my aim.

> >
> > - fine tuning - Somewhat to my surprise, I've learnt that fine tuning is increasingly accepted and with that, the multiverse as the only known naturalistic solution. If a multiverse cannot be empirically verified, then both sides are arguing in the realm of metaphysics.
>
> I'd say that fine-tuning is still fairly controversial, and that it remains very possible that empirical tests will be possible, and somewhat possible that a physical explanation for the values of the putatively fine-tuned constants will be found.

Yes - fascinating, legitimate, but tentative.

> > - abiogenesis - Their seems to be less confidence in the RNA World hypothesis now for various reasons, and it seems to be the head and shoulders the best option. I find this one personally compelling as an engineer and designer, with consideration of the potentially very high minimal complexity and functionality of a viable, metabolising, self-replicating structure before natural selection can operate (beyond naked RNA).
>
> There's more to the science of the origin of life than the simplest version of "RNA first." It's a difficult subject, not least because it requires bringing together bits of chemistry, physical chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, and geochemistry which are not central to most basic course in chemistry and biochemistry. And the arguments that "It couldn't have happened" are based on extremely naive models of the origin of life which nobody in the field proposes in the first place.

There is scope for conviction from naive incredulity. But I similarly think there is naivety on the other side. The heralding of Stanley-Miller as "life in a test tube" betrayed a naive optimism and gross underestimation of the problem at hand. I'd argue that the dilemma seems to be deepening.

"The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

> > When people on the street say they believe in science instead of God, I feel I can offer these, with some personal conviction, as "please consider" arguments. I qualify them as subject to revision in science, and acknowledge dissenting interpretations.
>
> It's good to be open to future revision. Instead of making a theological argument which is dependent on how some scientific question turns out, I'd just argue that science simply describes the way the world works and that the world is God's creation, no matter how it turns out. A detailed, entirely well-documented and supported naturalistic pathway for the origin of life would simply testify to how marvelous are the laws of physics which God created. I think you need to side-step entirely any arguments based on how some scientific question turns out. Presumably you would not think that a naturalistic explanation for the values of the physical constants or the origin of life would rule out God. If that's the case, the current lack of such an explanation does not help you rule in God, either.

But it does. With this approach, I have been able to ease people from "I'm an atheist because of science" to a meaningful dialogue. But that's a small part of the process, and a factor for a minority only.

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:19:17 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > >
> > > My quick review:
> > >
> > > - first cause - defenders like Sean Carroll are seem to fall back to speculative explanations such as the eternal existence of a quantum field and the laws of physics, saying these need no beginning. It remains a significant creationist argument IMO.
> >
> > I don't think First Cause gets you much of anywhere. Explanations end somewhere or it's turtles all the way down. It bothers you that someone would say "The quantum field *just is*" but it does not bother you to say "God just is." Why is the one in need of further explanation and not the other?
>
> I question the ability of the speculated quantum field to produce a universe, and that after an eternity past. Unless it's been coughing them up for an eternity?
>
> The question of God choosing to create "now" is not the same problem. (Though both are mind bending, dealing with an infinite "past").

Maybe my point was not clear. Never mind the "quantum field." The question is why does God get a pass and not require explanation? However fundamental your science gets, you always want to say that further explanation is still required. But by calling whatever it is that is responsible for the most fundamental laws of the universe "God," you somehow get to stop asking for further explanations. Why? - I'm approaching this from a natural theology point of view, of course. If you want to jump straight to Biblical faith, then there's nothing more to say.

>
> > If you get to God as a First Cause, then all you can say about God is what the effects are, a big universe made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter, with a little bit of conventional matter, and within that conventional matter a tiny fraction existing as planets capable of supporting life. The only characteristic you can infer of such a God is that He wanted the universe to come out just the way it did. It really adds nothing to what you learn just by studying the universe.
>
> Getting to God (even if yielding little or no extra info) is all that is needed to enable people in principle to clear their perceived science roadblock. Which is my aim.
>
> > >
> > > - fine tuning - Somewhat to my surprise, I've learnt that fine tuning is increasingly accepted and with that, the multiverse as the only known naturalistic solution. If a multiverse cannot be empirically verified, then both sides are arguing in the realm of metaphysics.
> >
> > I'd say that fine-tuning is still fairly controversial, and that it remains very possible that empirical tests will be possible, and somewhat possible that a physical explanation for the values of the putatively fine-tuned constants will be found.
>
> Yes - fascinating, legitimate, but tentative.
>
> > > - abiogenesis - Their seems to be less confidence in the RNA World hypothesis now for various reasons, and it seems to be the head and shoulders the best option. I find this one personally compelling as an engineer and designer, with consideration of the potentially very high minimal complexity and functionality of a viable, metabolising, self-replicating structure before natural selection can operate (beyond naked RNA).
> >
> > There's more to the science of the origin of life than the simplest version of "RNA first." It's a difficult subject, not least because it requires bringing together bits of chemistry, physical chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, and geochemistry which are not central to most basic course in chemistry and biochemistry. And the arguments that "It couldn't have happened" are based on extremely naive models of the origin of life which nobody in the field proposes in the first place.
>
> There is scope for conviction from naive incredulity. But I similarly think there is naivety on the other side. The heralding of Stanley-Miller as "life in a test tube" betrayed a naive optimism and gross underestimation of the problem at hand. I'd argue that the dilemma seems to be deepening.
>
> "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)"
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

Did you actually read the paper? Beyond the title? You know the title is a humorous reference to Churchill's saying that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." [Churchill apparently took it from someone else, but Churchill, Mark Twain, and Dorothy Parker inevitably get credit for anything sharp and funny that anyone ever said].

The article details proposed objections to the RNA world and then details evidence why those objections are not convincing. It is no more a dismissal of the RNA world hypothesis than the Churchill quote was a dismissal of democracy.

You seem to be getting most of your ideas about the origin of life from creationist sources. Those sources are not reliable; trusting them will make you say incorrect things that needlessly undermine your credibility. Needlessly because a successful, well-supported theory of the origin of life would *in no way* undermine belief in God. Likewise, the current lack of a successful, well-supported theory of the origin of life is not evidence for God.

>
> > > When people on the street say they believe in science instead of God, I feel I can offer these, with some personal conviction, as "please consider" arguments. I qualify them as subject to revision in science, and acknowledge dissenting interpretations.
> >
> > It's good to be open to future revision. Instead of making a theological argument which is dependent on how some scientific question turns out, I'd just argue that science simply describes the way the world works and that the world is God's creation, no matter how it turns out. A detailed, entirely well-documented and supported naturalistic pathway for the origin of life would simply testify to how marvelous are the laws of physics which God created. I think you need to side-step entirely any arguments based on how some scientific question turns out. Presumably you would not think that a naturalistic explanation for the values of the physical constants or the origin of life would rule out God. If that's the case, the current lack of such an explanation does not help you rule in God, either.
>
> But it does. With this approach, I have been able to ease people from "I'm an atheist because of science" to a meaningful dialogue. But that's a small part of the process, and a factor for a minority only.

But will it stick, if it turns out that you've been wrong about one of your signposts pointing to God? What if they read some good reviews of origin of life research and conclude that you hadn't really understood it when you cited Koonin's probability argument as a signpost pointing to God? Wouldn't it be better simply to say that science is mute on the existence of God, but that if there is a God, science tells you all sorts of fascinating stuff about the world He created?

[Ernest Major]

On 07/06/2016 10:14, MarkE wrote:
>>>
>>> My quick review:
>>>
>>> - first cause - defenders like Sean Carroll are seem to fall back to speculative explanations such as the eternal existence of a quantum field and the laws of physics, saying these need no beginning. It remains a significant creationist argument IMO.
>>
>> I don't think First Cause gets you much of anywhere. Explanations end somewhere or it's turtles all the way down. It bothers you that someone would say "The quantum field *just is*" but it does not bother you to say "God just is." Why is the one in need of further explanation and not the other?
>
> I question the ability of the speculated quantum field to produce a universe, and that after an eternity past. Unless it's been coughing them up for an eternity?
>
> The question of God choosing to create "now" is not the same problem. (Though both are mind bending, dealing with an infinite "past").
>
>> If you get to God as a First Cause, then all you can say about God is what the effects are, a big universe made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter, with a little bit of conventional matter, and within that conventional matter a tiny fraction existing as planets capable of supporting life. The only characteristic you can infer of such a God is that He wanted the universe to come out just the way it did. It really adds nothing to what you learn just by studying the universe.
>
> Getting to God (even if yielding little or no extra info) is all that is needed to enable people in principle to clear their perceived science roadblock. Which is my aim.

I suspect that you are not even addressing most instances of a perceived
science roadblock. Someone who says that they "believe in science not
God" may be saying they don't believe because they've been taught that
religion entails factually false claims. You can get round that by
giving up Biblical literalism (and effectively giving up Biblical
inerrancy).

>
>>>
>>> - fine tuning - Somewhat to my surprise, I've learnt that fine tuning is increasingly accepted and with that, the multiverse as the only known naturalistic solution. If a multiverse cannot be empirically verified, then both sides are arguing in the realm of metaphysics.
>>
>> I'd say that fine-tuning is still fairly controversial, and that it remains very possible that empirical tests will be possible, and somewhat possible that a physical explanation for the values of the putatively fine-tuned constants will be found.
>
> Yes - fascinating, legitimate, but tentative.
>
>>> - abiogenesis - Their seems to be less confidence in the RNA World hypothesis now for various reasons, and it seems to be the head and shoulders the best option. I find this one personally compelling as an engineer and designer, with consideration of the potentially very high minimal complexity and functionality of a viable, metabolising, self-replicating structure before natural selection can operate (beyond naked RNA).
>>
>> There's more to the science of the origin of life than the simplest version of "RNA first." It's a difficult subject, not least because it requires bringing together bits of chemistry, physical chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, and geochemistry which are not central to most basic course in chemistry and biochemistry. And the arguments that "It couldn't have happened" are based on extremely naive models of the origin of life which nobody in the field proposes in the first place.
>
> There is scope for conviction from naive incredulity. But I similarly think there is naivety on the other side. The heralding of Stanley-Miller as "life in a test tube" betrayed a naive optimism and gross underestimation of the problem at hand. I'd argue that the dilemma seems to be deepening.
>
> "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)"
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/
>
>>> When people on the street say they believe in science instead of God, I feel I can offer these, with some personal conviction, as "please consider" arguments. I qualify them as subject to revision in science, and acknowledge dissenting interpretations.
>>
>> It's good to be open to future revision. Instead of making a theological argument which is dependent on how some scientific question turns out, I'd just argue that science simply describes the way the world works and that the world is God's creation, no matter how it turns out. A detailed, entirely well-documented and supported naturalistic pathway for the origin of life would simply testify to how marvelous are the laws of physics which God created. I think you need to side-step entirely any arguments based on how some scientific question turns out. Presumably you would not think that a naturalistic explanation for the values of the physical constants or the origin of life would rule out God. If that's the case, the current lack of such an explanation does not help you rule in God, either.
>
> But it does. With this approach, I have been able to ease people from "I'm an atheist because of science" to a meaningful dialogue. But that's a small part of the process, and a factor for a minority only.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[MarkE]

In discussing this with Steven, I did concede that we don't know the probability distribution of constants, and therefore can't do a calculation that way (he argued the point well).

And yet, a large number (possibility now a majority) of non-religious scientists accept fine tuning and that it needs an explanation (more than simply being a brute fact). How do they reach this conclusion, I'm sure knowing we don't know the probability distribution? (I sketch/explore an explanation that thread).

> Does this mean that it's scientifically valid to claim a particular
> religious tradition is a plausible alternate explanation for phenomena
> that scientists explain with theories of cosmology, abiogenesis and
> evolution? You've stated clearly enough that you believe this to be
> the case, but you also rule out an examination of the underlying bases
> for your faith. You say that it's an unrelated topic. I view that as a
> fundamentally invalid claim within the framework of scientific
> epistemology.

I should have been clearer. That's a whole other topic, which I'd rather open up separately to give it the energy it deserves. Moreover, in arguing that science points to God, I am equally arguing for Islam or Christianity, so in that sense, discussing Christianity is separate next step.

Orthodox Christianity is grounded on historically accurate and real events, so challenges of this kind are confronting (though legitimate) to thinking believers. I'm willing to address that specifically at some point, but just to frame the argument, a few things:

Do you see that I'm not claiming the three listed arguments from science as support for Christianity per se, but rather for an unspecified supernatural agency?

Also, as I've noted elsewhere, there seem to be two different categories of evidence or knowing in relation to Christianity (and other religions):

One, personal revelation/experience, which is not subject to repeatable, independent verification.

Two, rational, logical, semi-objective, semi-verifiable etc. For example, former atheist and cold case homicide detective Jim Warner Wallace became a Christian after applying to the Bible the investigative techniques of eyewitness reliability, abductive reasoning and the rules of evidence.

The second is not science, nonetheless law courts use it to convict criminals, so it has a life-and-death level of acceptance a means of determining truth (despite its fallibility).

What is your view of argument and evidence for Christianity in that second category?

[MarkE]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:14:16 PM UTC+9:30, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:19:17 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My quick review:
> > > >
> > > > - first cause - defenders like Sean Carroll are seem to fall back to speculative explanations such as the eternal existence of a quantum field and the laws of physics, saying these need no beginning. It remains a significant creationist argument IMO.
> > >
> > > I don't think First Cause gets you much of anywhere. Explanations end somewhere or it's turtles all the way down. It bothers you that someone would say "The quantum field *just is*" but it does not bother you to say "God just is." Why is the one in need of further explanation and not the other?
> >
> > I question the ability of the speculated quantum field to produce a universe, and that after an eternity past. Unless it's been coughing them up for an eternity?
> >
> > The question of God choosing to create "now" is not the same problem. (Though both are mind bending, dealing with an infinite "past").
>
> Maybe my point was not clear. Never mind the "quantum field." The question is why does God get a pass and not require explanation? However fundamental your science gets, you always want to say that further explanation is still required. But by calling whatever it is that is responsible for the most fundamental laws of the universe "God," you somehow get to stop asking for further explanations. Why? - I'm approaching this from a natural theology point of view, of course. If you want to jump straight to Biblical faith, then there's nothing more to say.
>
> >
> > > If you get to God as a First Cause, then all you can say about God is what the effects are, a big universe made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter, with a little bit of conventional matter, and within that conventional matter a tiny fraction existing as planets capable of supporting life. The only characteristic you can infer of such a God is that He wanted the universe to come out just the way it did. It really adds nothing to what you learn just by studying the universe.
> >
> > Getting to God (even if yielding little or no extra info) is all that is needed to enable people in principle to clear their perceived science roadblock. Which is my aim.
> >
> > > >
> > > > - fine tuning - Somewhat to my surprise, I've learnt that fine tuning is increasingly accepted and with that, the multiverse as the only known naturalistic solution. If a multiverse cannot be empirically verified, then both sides are arguing in the realm of metaphysics.
> > >
> > > I'd say that fine-tuning is still fairly controversial, and that it remains very possible that empirical tests will be possible, and somewhat possible that a physical explanation for the values of the putatively fine-tuned constants will be found.
> >
> > Yes - fascinating, legitimate, but tentative.
> >
> > > > - abiogenesis - Their seems to be less confidence in the RNA World hypothesis now for various reasons, and it seems to be the head and shoulders the best option. I find this one personally compelling as an engineer and designer, with consideration of the potentially very high minimal complexity and functionality of a viable, metabolising, self-replicating structure before natural selection can operate (beyond naked RNA).
> > >
> > > There's more to the science of the origin of life than the simplest version of "RNA first." It's a difficult subject, not least because it requires bringing together bits of chemistry, physical chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, and geochemistry which are not central to most basic course in chemistry and biochemistry. And the arguments that "It couldn't have happened" are based on extremely naive models of the origin of life which nobody in the field proposes in the first place.
> >
> > There is scope for conviction from naive incredulity. But I similarly think there is naivety on the other side. The heralding of Stanley-Miller as "life in a test tube" betrayed a naive optimism and gross underestimation of the problem at hand. I'd argue that the dilemma seems to be deepening.
> >
> > "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)"
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/
>
> Did you actually read the paper? Beyond the title? You know the title is a humorous reference to Churchill's saying that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." [Churchill apparently took it from someone else, but Churchill, Mark Twain, and Dorothy Parker inevitably get credit for anything sharp and funny that anyone ever said].

I recognised allusion. I read the article a couple of weeks ago and still had it sitting in a browser tab - faulty recollection and an assumption it was more negative than it is. Fair cop.

> The article details proposed objections to the RNA world and then details evidence why those objections are not convincing. It is no more a dismissal of the RNA world hypothesis than the Churchill quote was a dismissal of democracy.
>
> You seem to be getting most of your ideas about the origin of life from creationist sources. Those sources are not reliable; trusting them will make you say incorrect things that needlessly undermine your credibility. Needlessly because a successful, well-supported theory of the origin of life would *in no way* undermine belief in God. Likewise, the current lack of a successful, well-supported theory of the origin of life is not evidence for God.
>
> >
> > > > When people on the street say they believe in science instead of God, I feel I can offer these, with some personal conviction, as "please consider" arguments. I qualify them as subject to revision in science, and acknowledge dissenting interpretations.
> > >
> > > It's good to be open to future revision. Instead of making a theological argument which is dependent on how some scientific question turns out, I'd just argue that science simply describes the way the world works and that the world is God's creation, no matter how it turns out. A detailed, entirely well-documented and supported naturalistic pathway for the origin of life would simply testify to how marvelous are the laws of physics which God created. I think you need to side-step entirely any arguments based on how some scientific question turns out. Presumably you would not think that a naturalistic explanation for the values of the physical constants or the origin of life would rule out God. If that's the case, the current lack of such an explanation does not help you rule in God, either.
> >
> > But it does. With this approach, I have been able to ease people from "I'm an atheist because of science" to a meaningful dialogue. But that's a small part of the process, and a factor for a minority only.
>
> But will it stick, if it turns out that you've been wrong about one of your signposts pointing to God? What if they read some good reviews of origin of life research and conclude that you hadn't really understood it when you cited Koonin's probability argument as a signpost pointing to God? Wouldn't it be better simply to say that science is mute on the existence of God, but that if there is a God, science tells you all sorts of fascinating stuff about the world He created?

That's why declare upfront that I could be wrong about any or all of these, or I could be right, or indeed other evidence in support of supernatural agency could emerge. So upfront: don't build your faith on this. But equally and more, don't decide to never think of building because of science.

[Bill Rogers]

When people tell you that they "believe in science not the Bible," what exactly do they mean? Are they just rejecting YEC? Are they unwilling to believe in the miracles attributed to Jesus? Do they think science answers every question and that religion is therefore unnecessary? There are many reasons they could say that they believe in science rather than the Bible, and I doubt that they mean things like "Since science has explained the origin of life, or the values of the physical constants, God does not exist.."

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/7/16 2:14 AM, MarkE wrote:
> [...]

> Getting to God (even if yielding little or no extra info) is
> all that is needed to enable people in principle to clear
> their perceived science roadblock. Which is my aim.

Why is "getting to God" important to you? Have you considered the
possibility that atheists with a decent understanding of how the
universe works might be closer to God than theists who rely upon lack of
understanding and sophistic arguments to buttress their beliefs?

There is a well-known poem, "Abou Ben Adhem" (
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/abou-ben-adhem/ ) which makes the point
that loving one's fellow man is more important than loving God.
Consider, likewise, that knowledge of God's works is more important than
belief in God.

[Jimbo]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:08:53 -0700 (PDT), MarkE

Would you concede that problems exist with your previous claim that
it's a choice between multiverse and God? Your own cited authority,
the Christian physicist Paul Steinhardt, hasn't made that claim.
Instead he proposed a cyclic model that apparently may be able to
account for the present values of the universal constants without
invoking multiverse.

I don't know anything about his theory beyond this, and the fact that
it predicts no gravitational waves. Unfortunately for that theory,
gravitational waves have recently been detected. The point is that he
did create an actual scientific model that made predictions. He
recognized that "God did it" isn't a valid theory unless potentially
observable attributes of "God" can be detected and linked to specific
physical effects.

I'm not saying that "God" didn't do it. I'm saying that I have no idea
what that claim means - or even if it means anything at all. This is a
fundamental issue. Even though problems exist with testing multiverse
and other theories they are openly questioned and their strengths and
weaknesses analyzed in detail. It is completely unscientific to make
claims based on beliefs that can't be analyzed and potentially tested
or even defined in such a way that potentially testable models can be
formulated.

>> Does this mean that it's scientifically valid to claim a particular
>> religious tradition is a plausible alternate explanation for phenomena
>> that scientists explain with theories of cosmology, abiogenesis and
>> evolution? You've stated clearly enough that you believe this to be
>> the case, but you also rule out an examination of the underlying bases
>> for your faith. You say that it's an unrelated topic. I view that as a
>> fundamentally invalid claim within the framework of scientific
>> epistemology.
>
>I should have been clearer. That's a whole other topic, which I'd rather open up separately to give it the energy it deserves. Moreover, in arguing that science points to God, I am equally arguing for Islam or Christianity, so in that sense, discussing Christianity is separate next step.

Fair enough, but how do you even begin to support a claim that science
points to God when you haven't made any attempt to define what you
mean by "God?"

Alright, but what do mean, then, when you say that miracles provide
evidence for God? Do miracles in the Koran count? What about
spontaneous recovery from cancers and people 'miraculously' surviving
natural disasters? What criteria do you apply to determine whether
something is really a miracle or not?

>Also, as I've noted elsewhere, there seem to be two different categories of evidence or knowing in relation to Christianity (and other religions):
>
>One, personal revelation/experience, which is not subject to repeatable, independent verification.
>
>Two, rational, logical, semi-objective, semi-verifiable etc. For example, former atheist and cold case homicide detective Jim Warner Wallace became a Christian after applying to the Bible the investigative techniques of eyewitness reliability, abductive reasoning and the rules of evidence.
>
>The second is not science, nonetheless law courts use it to convict criminals, so it has a life-and-death level of acceptance a means of determining truth (despite its fallibility).
>
>What is your view of argument and evidence for Christianity in that second category?

I have none. I'm not familiar with Jim Warner or his work. Can you
cite particular unique aspects of Christianity, lacking in other
religions, that can be applied to solving crimes? The only thing I can
say at the moment is that tests routinely demonstrate the
unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It's highly regarded in courts
of law, but scientific research doesn't support various legal systems
very highly in this regard.

[Ernest Major]

Apparently his name is Jim Warner Wallace. The claim is that he applied
the techniques of criminal investigation to conclude that the
Resurrection is factual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Warner_Wallace
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Warner+Wallace

I've seen mention of him before, complete (IIRC) with the claim that he
investigated first and then became a Christian. According to WikiPedia
that reverses the chronology.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Jimbo]

Wallace is probably good at crime scene investigation but it seems to
me that, if MarkE is going to claim he has presented evidence that the
resurrection of Jesus is factual, then he ought to acknowledge that
the Bible claims all the graves around Jerusalem opened up on the same
day. That event was part of the same 'scene.' Why does MarkE (and
Wallace?) ignore this? Is the Bible inaccurate in this one instance
but accurate when it refers to the angel by Jesus's tomb? I wouldn't
regard as good investigatory technique an approach that rules out of
consideration all pieces of evidence that can be independently checked
for validity.

[Steven Carlip]

On 6/7/16 9:23 AM, Jimbo wrote:

[...]

> Would you concede that problems exist with your previous claim that
> it's a choice between multiverse and God? Your own cited authority,
> the Christian physicist Paul Steinhardt, hasn't made that claim.
> Instead he proposed a cyclic model that apparently may be able to
> account for the present values of the universal constants without
> invoking multiverse.

> I don't know anything about his theory beyond this, and the fact that
> it predicts no gravitational waves. Unfortunately for that theory,
> gravitational waves have recently been detected.

Not a problem for Steinhardt's model. The cyclic model predicts
no *primordial* gravitational waves, waves from the extremely
early Universe. At the moment, no such waves have been seen
(Bicep2 claimed to have found them, but turned out to be wrong.)

Steve Carlip

[Jimbo]

Thank you for the correction. If I'm not misunderstanding again, this
would seem to indicate that his model remains a viable alternative to
a multiverse. It's interesting that a Christian scientist of strong
faith chose to do genuine science instead of throwing up his hands and
proclaiming that physics and cosmology have come to a point where they
can do no more - leaving us only with metaphysical theories or
religious beliefs that we can choose among according to our
preference.

>Steve Carlip

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 18:49:16 UTC+3, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> When people tell you that they "believe in science not the Bible," what
> exactly do they mean? Are they just rejecting YEC? Are they unwilling
> to believe in the miracles attributed to Jesus? Do they think science
> answers every question and that religion is therefore unnecessary?

There is likely significant overlap between different interpretations of
any phrase (including that "they believe in science not the Bible") but
the differences can be large so being exact feels impossible on general
case.

> There are many reasons they could say that they believe in science
> rather than the Bible, and I doubt that they mean things like "Since
> science has explained the origin of life, or the values of the physical
> constants, God does not exist.."

If to take it word by word then they claim that where (their interpretation
of position of) science and (their interpretation of position of) Bible
disagree there they have faith in truth of (alleged position of) science.
So if in (incorrect AFAIK) interpretation of those people science has
a clear answer to existence of God, origin of life and origin of
fundamental physical constants then indeed it mostly overlaps with
what you wrote.

[MarkE]

> > That's why declare upfront that I could be wrong about any or all of these, or I could be right, or indeed other evidence in support of supernatural agency could emerge. So upfront: don't build your faith on this. But equally and more, don't decide to never think of building because of science.
>
> When people tell you that they "believe in science not the Bible," what exactly do they mean? Are they just rejecting YEC? Are they unwilling to believe in the miracles attributed to Jesus? Do they think science answers every question and that religion is therefore unnecessary? There are many reasons they could say that they believe in science rather than the Bible, and I doubt that they mean things like "Since science has explained the origin of life, or the values of the physical constants, God does not exist.."

I said "they believe in science instead of God", and "I'm an atheist because of science", not "believe in science not the Bible".

Here are the results from my anecdotal street research on science, belief and God. This is in Darwin, Northern Australia (yes, I live in the city named after Charles Darwin :). The demographic is under 30, some local lads, US marines, and lots of European backpackers, taxi drivers from India and the Middle East, and indigenous folk.

70% believe in a God of some description.

20% are agnostic or haven't thought about it.

10% declare they are atheist up front. When you ask questions, I've found that the majority of those who say they're atheist or agnostic have actually done minimal investigation.

It's the second and particularly third group to whom I say, "Here are some reasons from science to consider God. Google them and make up your mind. It's a mistake the rule out God because of science. But let's talk about Jesus..."

[Wm. Esque]

If the issue is really FINE TUNING, THE MULTIVERSE OR GOD, then
according to certain leading scientist, the fine tuning of the
fundamental constants wins out it seems fine tuning is real. However,
there doesn't seem to be any conclusions as to how this precision came
to be. But apparently it is very real. And if they values of the
constants were much different we could not be here. So, what does this
mean? I mentioned three scientist and their comments from a video.
>
Dr. Danly an American astronomer and academic. Currently, Danly serves
as Curator at Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Danly
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMpWcf4ee0
First 2 minutes of video
>
Dr. Danly states: "Everything in nature is determined by the fundamental
forces of nature. The strengths of the forces are characterized by
numbers called fundamental constants, that are so sensitive that if they
changed by just a little bit, the universe as we know it wouldn't be here.
For example, if the rate of the expansion of universe, right after the
big bang had changed by one part in a Quintilian, a Quintilian is 1 with
18 zeros after it, the universe would continue to expand or collapse
back on itself and none of this would be possible.
How much is a Quintilian?
To illustrate just how small one part in a Quintilian is, just imagine
all the grains of sand on this beach, in fact just imagine all the
grains of sand on all the worlds beaches, this number is somewhere
around a Quintilian. In this analogy, if all this sand represented
the rate of expansion right after the big bang, how many grains
of sand would I have to add or subtract to wreck the universe?
Just one grain - one in a Quintilian. . That's how precise
things had to be for us to be here." end Dr. Danly's quote.

Dr Leonard Susskind, "Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of
Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford
Institute for Theoretical Physics."

theoretical minimum.com/biography

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMpWcf4ee0
Begins at 8:15 minutes into video
In Dr. Susskind's words:

"The fine tunings, how fine tuned are they. Most are 1% sort of

things iow if things are 1% different everything is bad. The

physicist could say maybe those are just luck. Otoh this

cosmological constant is tuned to one part in 10 to the 120

-120 decimal places. No body thinks that's accidental, that is

not a reasonable idea, that something is tuned to 120 decimal places

just by accident. That's to most extreme example of fine tuning;

no force in the history of cosmology has ever been discovered to be

that finely tuned. The cosmological constant needs to be set

to one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion,

trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion

otherwise, the universe would be so drastically different that it

would be impossible for us to evolve. How the cosmological constant

arrived to such a tiny value by chance seemed to be out of the

question, but the alternative explanation was also impossible to

contemplate. Physics did not want to accept the idea that the laws of
physics might be controlled by the uh, er by well the benevolence of
nature. There should be no reason why the luck should have it that we

can exist. It's too much - it's it's a stretch, that's too much a

stretch".


Dr Martin Rees. Martin Rees is a Fellow of Trinity College and
Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of
Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal and also
Visiting Professor at Imperial College London and at Leicester
University. After studying at the University of Cambridge, he held
post-doctoral positions in the UK and the USA, before becoming a
professor at Sussex University. In 1973, he became a fellow of King's
College and Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy
at Cambridge

www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjr/

Dr. Rees words, "It seemed that hidden in the laws of nature was

a value so precise, that it was impossible to deny that our universe

was designed, but a designed universe requires a designer, but a

designer, a notion that even the anthropic scientist did not want

to entertain."



Dr. Susskind's words,

"The scientist were between a rock and a hard place,

their own discoveries was pointing them towards an intelligent designer

this was the dislike the mixing religion with physics. I think they

were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world
is the way it is has to do with our own existence that that would be

hijacked by the creationist by the Intelligent designers and of course

what they would say is, yes we always told you so. There is a benevolent

somebody somewhere hogh up in the universe eactly so that we could live.
I think physicist shrank from getting involved in such things"

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:04:13 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > That's why declare upfront that I could be wrong about any or all of these, or I could be right, or indeed other evidence in support of supernatural agency could emerge. So upfront: don't build your faith on this. But equally and more, don't decide to never think of building because of science.
> >
> > When people tell you that they "believe in science not the Bible," what exactly do they mean? Are they just rejecting YEC? Are they unwilling to believe in the miracles attributed to Jesus? Do they think science answers every question and that religion is therefore unnecessary? There are many reasons they could say that they believe in science rather than the Bible, and I doubt that they mean things like "Since science has explained the origin of life, or the values of the physical constants, God does not exist.."
>
> I said "they believe in science instead of God", and "I'm an atheist because of science", not "believe in science not the Bible".

Never mind the phrasing. The question is what is it about science that they think forces an atheist conclusion or rules out Christianity or theism?

[Wm. Esque]

value so precise, that it was impossible to deny that our universe

s designed, but a designed universe requires a designer, but a

signer, a notion that even the anthropic scientist did not want

entertain."

Dr. Susskind's words:

[Ernest Major]

On 08/06/2016 16:24, Bill Rogers wrote:
> Never mind the phrasing. The question is what is it about science that they think forces an atheist conclusion or rules out Christianity or theism?

I suggest you ask further what it is about science and what it is about
religion that they think forces an atheist to rule out Christianity or
theism - is the problem in what science says, or in what religion says.

--
alias Ernest Major

[MarkE]

Just quickly - not ignoring your comments, no time right now - what is your position on this:

Warner did cold case homicide investigation for events 30 years ago, with no living witnesses, and often a lack of physical evidence. The knowledge this technique provides, though imperfect, is accepted by law courts to convict and sentence people to life imprisonment or execution. Which is a strong validation of this epistemology.

Warner then applied the same techniques to the 2000 year old case of Christ. There are some differences and extra challenges involved, but in principle at least it's applicable and valid.

So we have the in principle possibility of obtaining a legal grade verdict on the gospel. It's not science, but it's capable of yielding knowledge good enough to inform life and death decisions.

The questions then become, how effectively can these techniques be applied in practice? What is the nature and quality of the circumstantial evidence? How well has the case been made?

I'm not making a claim either way on Warner's work. I simply suggesting that this is an example where, in principle, a logical case could be made for the resurrection of Christ.

For the gist of his approach, skim this video: https://youtu.be/oN2EKL7E2Vg