Alan Lightman’s recent piece in Harpers on the multiverse has all the usual goodies: The problem that the universe is finely tuned, science devolving into speculation, scientific explanation devolving from law-driven necessity to contingency-driven chance, and more. As Alan Guth, explains, “the multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes to understand the world from fundamental principles.” But no story about the multiverse would be complete without the all-important, so-called, anthropic principle and Lightman does not disappoint. The multiverse is the cosomologist’s role in the evolutionary creation story, and just as evolutionists center their myth in the thing that was created, so too the cosmologist’s point of reference is, yes, us.
When you ask an evolutionist how profoundly complex biological designs, that even today confound our best scientists and engineers, evolved, they will explain that the organic wonder increased the fitness of the organism in which it evolved. In other words, the new design fulfilled a need. They will explain this in great detail, as though that suffices as an explanation to the question. The brain evolved because it was needed.
Likewise, when you ask a cosomologist how the universe was finely tuned, they will explain that it must be finely tuned because, as British physicist Brandon Carter explained, we are here to observe it. If it weren’t finely tuned, it wouldn’t be observed because life would be impossible. Simply put, our universe is what it is because we are here.
It would be like hitting a thousand jackpots in a row in Las Vegas and explaining it by referring to the money you collected. True, if you hadn’t hit those jackpots you couldn’t have collected the money, but that doesn’t explain the astronomically unlikely event.
It’s all about worshipping the creature rather than the creator.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Multiverse Gods, final part - Robert Sheldon - June 2011
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: And so in our long journey through the purgatory of multiverse-theory, we discover as we previously discovered for materialism, there are two solutions, and only two. Either William Lane Craig is correct and multiverse-theory is just another ontological proof a personal Creator, or we follow Nietzsche into the dark nihilism of the loss of reason. Heaven or hell, there are no other solutions.
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/06/30/the_multiverse_gods,_final_part.thtml
On Signature in the Cell, Robert Saunders Still Doesn't Get It - Jonathan M. - December 2011
Excerpt: On the issue of fine tuning, Saunders appeals to the famous anthropic argument, noting, 'The fine-tuning argument has always seemed to me to be somewhat tautologous. Had the constants been different, we would not be here to look at the Universe and its physical constants. We have a sample size of 1. Exactly 1.'
William Lane Craig has effectively countered this argument:
'[S]uppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that, "You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead," nonetheless it is equally true that, "You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive."
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/robert_saunders053711.html
I loaded this video recently:
Hugh Ross - The Anthropic Principle and (Brandon Carter's) Anthropic Inequality - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/8469673
Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661
This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote:
"So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." - Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics
A few examples of fine-tuning:
DeleteFinely Tuned Gravity (1 in 10^40 tolerance; which is just one inch of tolerance allowed on a imaginary ruler stretching across the diameter of the entire universe) - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/7659795/
Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy (10^-120) and Mass of the Universe(10^-60) - Hugh Ross - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007682
Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem
Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
The odds of one particular individual constant, the 'original phase-space volume' of the universe, required such precision that the "Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it.
Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo
How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose
Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
(from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989)
Corrected link:
DeleteHugh Ross - The Anthropic Principle and (Bandon Carter's) Anthropic Inequality - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/8494065
I would like to also point out that the fine tuning of fundamental constants are found to be interdependent, 'irreducibly complex'
“If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for every one that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity."
Gribbin and Rees, “Cosmic Coincidences”, p. 269
As well, besides fine-tuning for the fundamental constants, astrophysicists find fine tuning on every size scale they look at in the structure of the universe:
Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
Moreover, the parameters that make this planet an extremely 'privileged planet' are found to be, like the fundamental constants, interdependent, 'irreducibly complex';
Among Darwin Advocates, Premature Celebration over Abundance of Habitable Planets - September 2011
Excerpt: Today, such processes as planet formation details, tidal forces, plate tectonics, magnetic field evolution, and planet-planet, planet-comet, and planet-asteroid gravitational interactions are found to be relevant to habitability.,,, What's more, not only are more requirements for habitability being discovered, but they are often found to be interdependent, forming a (irreducibly) complex "web." This means that if a planetary system is found not to satisfy one of the habitability requirements, it may not be possible to compensate for this deficit by adjusting a different parameter in the system. - Guillermo Gonzalez
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/among_darwin_advocates_prematu050871.html
Moreover there is a 'observability correlation':
DeleteThe very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
- Jay Richards
Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431
A video of related 'observability correlation' interest;
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video
http://vimeo.com/31940671
Further notes on how the 'observability correlation' validates the presupposition of the Christian Theists who founded science, who believed that the universe was created by the Mind of God and can be understood by the mind of man, since we are made in God’s image:
Epistemology: Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit
"It’s all about worshipping the creature rather than the creator."
ReplyDeleteNo, really Cornelius, it is not. It is about recognising that from any given creature's point of view the universe will look as though it led to that creature.
Elizabeth Liddle said
ReplyDelete"It is about recognising that from any given creature's point of view the universe will look as though it led to that creature."
Could you explain how do you know that? Can you confirm that for the cockroach I jus killed for his point of view the universe looked though as it led to it?
Only by applying simple reasoning. I don't suppose the cockroach thinks much.
DeleteBut if we suppose a population of intelligent beings in some other part of the universe, or even multiverse, then they will be at the center of their own obervable universe, and the very fact that they exist will be evidence that the universe they inhabit led to them.
But we do not see us in the centre of the solar system, nor in the center of the milky way and to not see us in the center of the universe we choose to think the universe do not hav a center or any place is hs center.
DeleteWhy we think it lead to us? Why any other intellingent being will see themselves t the center of their own obervable universe, and the very fact that they exist will be evidence that the universe they inhabit led to them.?
Well, we are in the dead centre of our own observable universe. And in the dead centre of what is probably the only planet that would be hospitable to our kind.
DeleteSo it's a temptation to think: how amazing that the universe was fine-tuned for us! There must be a creator God who intended us, to whom we owe our lives!
Whereas far from "worshipping the creature rather than the creator", a scientific approach tends to lead to worship of neither - and a more humble, perhaps, view of our position as one intelligent sentient population among what may be countless others, in both the observable and the unobservable universe.
It could be argued that worshipping a creator is indeed to worship ourselves as that creator's creatures, and to think of ourselves as super-important.
I think we are awesome, but not that important :)
"So it's a temptation to think: how amazing that the universe was fine-tuned for us! There must be a creator God who intended us, to whom we owe our lives!
DeleteWhereas far from "worshipping the creature rather than the creator", a scientific approach tends to lead to worship of neither - and a more humble, perhaps, view of our position as one intelligent sentient population among what may be countless others, in both the observable and the unobservable universe."
Maybe in that two sentences you put togheter the problems with this useless discussion.
"So it's a temptation to think: how amazing that the universe was fine-tuned"
Yes this is a natural question, the problem is when we want to answer with "a scientific approach". Because the answer it is not a scientific one, as we cannot define or mesure how fine is tuned the universe. So trying to demostrate the scientifically the existance of the Creator based in this argument is so wrong as trying to bring unscientific infinite universes to demonstrate scientifically the non existance of the Creator.
Elizabeth,
DeleteYou're find that many arguments here are based on biblical assumptions which are not explicitly disclosed.
For example, Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew in that he assumed there is a cosmic battle of good and evil raging in this age. This represented one of many theological accounts as to why good things happened to some people but not others. However, for this to actually account for all good and bad events, it also had to assume everyone chose a side in this battle, even if they didn't realize it. Otherwise, it simply wouldn't be applicable to everyone and all scenarios.
Since most of the theists here do not recognize this as an idea that would be open to criticism, they implicitly include these theistic assumptions in their arguments and project them on to everyone else.
In other words, if we do not worship the creator, then we must be worshiping the creature. There can be no middle ground. If there were, their world could not be completely and exhaustively "explained though these same theistic accounts for good and bad events, etc.
And if an account isn't exhaustive, then it's meaningless. So, it must be exhaustive, etc.
Of course, Cornelius has no need to disclose or argue these implicit assumptions because he knows his target audience holds them as well. Nor does he want to as it would expose them to criticism.
So, it comes as no surprise that we end up with these sorts of false dichotomies that appear arbitrary to us. It's a necessary part of how they interpret their world.
There seems to be an odd assumption that the idea of multiverses is a deliberate contrivance to exclude God, by upping the odds in favour of happy accidents.
DeleteFirstly, multiverses would not exclude God.
Secondly, that's not the reason they are proposed.
Thirdly: does anyone here really think that the observable universe, of which we are, necessarily, at the dead centre, must also necessarily be all there is?
That would really seem like "creature worship", or, at least, extreme egotism, to me.
Elizabeth Liddle said:
Delete"There seems to be an odd assumption that the idea of multiverses is a deliberate contrivance to exclude God, by upping the odds in favour of happy accidents.
Firstly, multiverses would not exclude God."
Right the MT do not exclude God, make the chances for the existance of life good enough to say "we do not need a God".
"Secondly, that's not the reason they are proposed."
Why then they propose the MT?
"Thirdly: does anyone here really think that the observable universe, of which we are, necessarily, at the dead centre, must also necessarily be all there is?"
Tell me why I have to think otherwise.
Blas: Right the MT do not exclude God, make the chances for the existance of life good enough to say "we do not need a God".
DeleteNot sure of your point. And I'm not even sure what multiverses have to do with "the chances for the existence of life" - given the universe we have, the chances of life may not be very small, although we don't have frequency data to tell us what is. As for the probability of the universe we have (one with carbon atoms, for instance) - again, we just don't know.
But I don't see how it bears on the question of whether God exists or not. Why should God make a universe in which life was unlikely, then tweak it, rather than making one that was likely?
BlasWhy then they propose the MT?
Because there are a lot of things we don't understand about the universe, and multiverse models may prove better fits to our data. In any case, it is pretty well necessarily the case that the observable universe is only a tiny fraction of the whole, and there is no a priori reason why we should assume that our neighbourhood of it has the same laws that pertain in other neighbourhoods. We know that the early universe was not uniform, even the part of it we can observe.
"Thirdly: does anyone here really think that the observable universe, of which we are, necessarily, at the dead centre, must also necessarily be all there is?"
Tell me why I have to think otherwise.
Because we can necessarily only see as far as across space time as light can have travelled since Big Bang. And there's lots of evidence for Big Bang.
From Wiki:
The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years, but due to the expansion of space humans are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.75 billion light-years distance.[2] The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years),[3] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.[4][5]
So, as I said, according to this model, we are at the dead centre of an observable universe of finite diameter. The galaxies at the edge of our observable universe are in the dead centre of a different observable universe (if there are any observerse there) which only partially overlaps with ours.
Unless you believe that we are at the dead centre of the only possible universe, i.e. that the observable universe at which we are the dead centre, is the entire universe, then there must be far more to the universe than we know of.
But there are other multiverse models, derived from other lines of reasoning, including interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Elizabeth Liddle said
DeleteBlas Why then they propose the MT?
"Because there are a lot of things we don't understand about the universe, and multiverse models may prove better fits to our data."
That it is not science! How something we only immagine (because we do not have any observation of others universes) be the scientific answer to data that do not fit.
Star Trek is more science than multiverse then.
If data do not fit, then do not fit, you do not invent other universes to explain them.
"In any case, it is pretty well necessarily the case that the observable universe is only a tiny fraction of the whole, and there is no a priori reason why we should assume that our neighbourhood of it has the same laws that pertain in other neighbourhoods."
This are more realistic assumptions.
We know that the early universe was not uniform, even the part of it we can observe.
"Because we can necessarily only see as far as across space time as light can have travelled since Big Bang. And there's lots of evidence for Big Bang."
Assuming that there are parts oh this universe we can´t see do not allow you think there ae others differents univeres. If this started from a "singulartie" in the big bang what allow you to think there was other singularities and other big bangs?
"So, as I said, according to this model, we are at the dead centre of an observable universe of finite diameter. The galaxies at the edge of our observable universe are in the dead centre of a different observable universe (if there are any observerse there) which only partially overlaps with ours."
If any place of the universe is the center of the universe there is no center of the universe.
EL: "Because there are a lot of things we don't understand about the universe, and multiverse models may prove better fits to our data."
DeleteBlas: "That it is not science! How something we only immagine (because we do not have any observation of others universes) be the scientific answer to data that do not fit.
Star Trek is more science than multiverse then."
That's why I said (as you quoted me) that we have to choose the model that best fits our data. If multiverse model fits the data better, then that is a reason to choose a multiverse model. That is science: fitting models to data.
Blas: "Assuming that there are parts oh this universe we can´t see do not allow you think there ae others differents univeres. If this started from a "singulartie" in the big bang what allow you to think there was other singularities and other big bangs?
If data do not fit, then do not fit, you do not invent other universes to explain them."
I don't know whether "there was other singularities and other big bangs" - but those are possible models, and may prove better fitted to our data than current models. If so, then the scientific approach is to prefer those models.
Blas:"If any place of the universe is the center of the universe there is no center of the universe."
No indeed. However, there is a centre of the "observable universe" as defined (as it is normally defined) as the "universe observable by human beings on 21st century Earth", and that centre is right here.
And we can deduce that it is a tiny fraction of the whole, therefore inferring that what laws pertain here must pertain everywhere is unjustified. This makes the "fine-tuning" argument unsustainable. We don't know whether there are many "tunings" in the whole, and only in patches in which those tunings are compatible with life will there be observers to observed that their patch is "fine-tuned" for them :)
All we know is that our patch is a) a tiny fraction of the whole and b) has properties compatible with life-as-we-know-it.
Elizabeth Liddle said
Delete"That's why I said (as you quoted me) that we have to choose the model that best fits our data. If multiverse model fits the data better, then that is a reason to choose a multiverse model. That is science: fitting models to data."
Sorry Elizabeth is that is science religion is also science, you can add the god of the gaps to make fit your models. Which is the difference?
"I don't know whether "there was other singularities and other big bangs" - but those are possible models, and may prove better fitted to our data than current models. If so, then the scientific approach is to prefer those models."
God also can make fit your data with your models.
"No indeed. However, there is a centre of the "observable universe" as defined (as it is normally defined) as the "universe observable by human beings on 21st century Earth", and that centre is right here."
Sorry, are you saying that we can see the same distance in every direction so we are the center in other words?
"And we can deduce that it is a tiny fraction of the whole, therefore inferring that what laws pertain here must pertain everywhere is unjustified."
Well, that is the base for the argument to beleive that exists the dark matter and the dark energy.
"This makes the "fine-tuning" argument unsustainable. We don't know whether there are many "tunings" in the whole, and only in patches in which those tunings are compatible with life will there be observers to observed that their patch is "fine-tuned" for them :)"
If you think this si possible, you have to accept that the fine tuning for us is valid at the presents, the conditions in the past could be different as they can be different at different distance in this universe. Then any extrapolation of what we call phisical law to the past and big distance is arbitrary.
Blas: "Sorry Elizabeth is that is science religion is also science, you can add the god of the gaps to make fit your models. Which is the difference?"
DeleteI'm sorry, I don't understand your question - could you rephrase?
Blas: "God also can make fit your data with your models."
Yes, any data can fit a God model.
Blas: "Sorry, are you saying that we can see the same distance in every direction so we are the center in other words?"
I'm saying that because we can see the same distance in every direction, we are the center of the universe that we can see, which is only a tiny portion of the entire universe.
Blas: "Well, that is the base for the argument to beleive that exists the dark matter and the dark energy."
No, that isn't the reason to posit dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is posited to explain why the gravitational effects of cosmic objects is greater than can be accounted for by the luminous matter that we observe. It suggests the presence of non-luminous ("dark") matter.
Dark energy is posited to account for the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Blas: "If you think this si possible, you have to accept that the fine tuning for us is valid at the presents, the conditions in the past could be different as they can be different at different distance in this universe. Then any extrapolation of what we call phisical law to the past and big distance is arbitrary"
Well, no, because we can make verifiable predictions concerning the past, because when we look deep into space we are also looking backwards in time. So we can verify, for instance, that light travelled at the same speed in the past of years ago as it does now - we can actually watch it doing so!
So extrapolations aren't arbitrary - they are often testable, and have been tested.
Elizabeth Liddle said
DeleteI'm sorry, I don't understand your question - could you rephrase?
Yes I made too much mistakes, here it goes:
Sorry Elizabeth if that is science, religion is also science, you can add the god of the gaps to make fit your models. Which is the difference with the multiverse of the gaps?
"which is only a tiny portion of the entire universe."
This a guess, as we cannot see out of there, there is not scientific evidence of what are you saying.
"No, that isn't the reason to posit dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is posited to explain why the gravitational effects of cosmic objects is greater than can be accounted for by the luminous matter that we observe. It suggests the presence of non-luminous ("dark") matter."
If the laws of phisics are valid in all the universe.
"Dark energy is posited to account for the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating."
If the laws of phisics are valid in all the universe.
Blas: "If you think this si possible, you have to accept that the fine tuning for us is valid at the presents, the conditions in the past could be different as they can be different at different distance in this universe. Then any extrapolation of what we call phisical law to the past and big distance is arbitrary"
Well, no, because we can make verifiable predictions concerning the past, because when we look deep into space we are also looking backwards in time. So we can verify, for instance, that light travelled at the same speed in the past of years ago as it does now - we can actually watch it doing so!
If the laws of phisics are valid in all the universe.
"So extrapolations aren't arbitrary - they are often testable, and have been tested."
If the laws of phisics are valid in all the universe. And you said not me that:
"And we can deduce that it is a tiny fraction of the whole, therefore inferring that what laws pertain here must pertain everywhere is unjustified. "
Yes, there is a multiverse that explains all of our existence. But where did the mutliverse come from?
ReplyDeletePeter, very good question. It will be interesting to see how that plays out here.
ReplyDeleteThose who worship the creature must believe that the multiverse ultimately came from absolutely nothing (in the absolute sense of that meaning). They have no alternative but God, and with the shingle outside their door reading, "No Designer Allowed", that's all they have... nothing.
Who "worship[s] the creature"? I don't know of anyone - do you?
DeleteIt seems to me yet another of Cornelius's straw men.
Definition of Worship from Websters:
ReplyDelete1. chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
Idols do not have to be made of wood or stone and worship does not always mean praying or bowing. Evolution certainly earns deep devotion and passion among its disciples that depends on a blind faith. The white bearded Charles Darwin is its prophet. Its priests are the university irovy tower "elites". Its bible is Origin of Species. It's symbol is Darwins tree of life, its pulpits are university podiums, its altar is the in the hearts, its creator is evolution, its god is man.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt’s all about worshipping the creature rather than the creator.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it bad form to insinuate religion into (what purports to be) a blog about science?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell pendant, Isn't it bad form to insinuate religion into (what purports to be) a BOOK about science?
DeleteCharles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species
I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.
4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.
5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life.
8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
The brain evolved because it was needed.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard an "evolutionist" put it like that. Do you have an example?
Likewise, when you ask a cosomologist how the universe was finely tuned, they will explain that it must be finely tuned because, as British physicist Brandon Carter explained, we are here to observe it. If it weren’t finely tuned, it wouldn’t be observed because life would be impossible. Simply put, our universe is what it is because we are here.
I think I've posted this before but it bears repetition since you're bringing up the fine-tuning argument again: this is Douglas Adams' neat commentary via his puddle analogy:
. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
There are an awful lot of pretentious puddles around.
Why worship anything at all?
ReplyDeleteBayesian considerations on the multiverse explanation of cosmic fine-tuning - V. Palonen
DeleteConclusions: ,,, The self-sampling assumption approach by Bostrom was shown to be inconsistent with probability theory. Several reasons were then given for favoring the ‘this universe’ (TU) approach and main criticisms against TU were answered. A formal argument for TU was given based on our present knowledge. The main result is that even under a multiverse we should use the proposition “this universe is fine-tuned” as data, even if we do not know the ‘true index’ 14 of our universe. It follows that because multiverse hypotheses do not predict fine-tuning for this particular universe any better than a single universe hypothesis, multiverse hypotheses are not adequate explanations for fine-tuning. Conversely, our data on cosmic fine-tuning does not lend support to the multiverse hypotheses. For physics in general, irrespective of whether there really is a multiverse or not, the common-sense result of the above discussion is that we should prefer those theories which best predict (for this or any universe) the phenomena we observe in our universe.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.4013.pdf
Infinitely wrong - Sheldon - November 2010
DeleteExcerpt: So you see, they gleefully cry, even [1 / 10^(10^123)] x ∞ = 1! Even the most improbable events can be certain if you have an infinite number of tries.,,,Ahh, but does it? I mean, zero divided by zero is not one, nor is 1/∞ x ∞ = 1. Why? Well for starters, it assumes that the two infinities have the same cardinality.
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/11/05/infinitely_wrong.thtml
I don't see anything there about a reason for worshiping things - unless you're suggesting we worship the multiverse theory.
DeleteBecause the Bible says everyone chooses a side, even if they do not realize it. This is a necessary part of how they make sense of the world they live in. And since we're part of their world, they project that assumption on us as well.
DeleteAs such, we end us with arguments that assume we either worship the creator or the creature.
This is yet another example of an inability to recognize theistic assumptions as an ideas that would be subject to criticism. If it's not an idea, there would be no need to explicitly disclose or argue for it.
[sarcasm] So, stop trying to change muddle the issue! Everyone knows that you have to worship something![/sarcasm]
'Why worship anything at all?'
DeleteWell Ian isn't your entire existence entirely pointless anyway if you were to actually live out your materialistic atheism consistently? Consistently to its dark nihilistic end as Nietzsche did?. Really,,, what's the point in anything??? Any purpose or meaning to life that you may hold would merely be a illusion in the grand scheme of things would it not?
Ever read the "Myth Of Sisyphus" ,BA?
DeleteVel, if you think the dark nihilism of Nietzche's atheism was bad as for a life lived in this temporal realm, have you ever pondered the consequences of actually being separated from God for all eternity in the spiritual realm?
Delete23 Minutes In Hell - Full Length video - Bill Wiese
https://vimeo.com/16641462
There are 1,850 verses in the New Testament that contain Jesus speaking. In thirteen percent of those verses, Jesus speaks regarding eternal judgment and hell.
Matthew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
The following video is eye-opening with its archeological evidence for authenticity of the Bible:
The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah - (+98% sulfur balls) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Y
notes:
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
"The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass."
Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.'
Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/29895068
Is that a yes? You have read it.
DeleteSo you are saying that less than 13% of Jesus's ministry dealt with the afterlife, what was the bulk about? Which does he speak of hell? A couple of the scariest.
DeleteSo the reason to worship God is out of fear of punishment?
DeleteYou don't have to worry about anything anymore, Velikovsky. You are going to hell, have fun and send postcard.
DeleteWhat makes you think we won't see you down there?
Deletebornagain77 May 11, 2012 7:48 PM
Delete[...]
Well Ian isn't your entire existence entirely pointless anyway if you were to actually live out your materialistic atheism consistently? Consistently to its dark nihilistic end as Nietzsche did?. Really,,, what's the point in anything???
A perfectly good question but if the Creator's only purpose in creating us was to provide Him with a sort of Divine Fan Club, is that really much better than no purpose at all?
Also, if God can devise a purpose for us, what is to prevent us from forming our own purposes? We are supposed to be made in His image, after all. Maybe He wants us to stand on our own two feet and form our own purposes. Maybe that was His purpose in creating us.
Luckily for lapsed Catholics,a good confession and you are home free.
DeleteIan
Delete"What makes you think we won't see you down there?"
see Velikovsky's answer.
Ian, besides you providing a perfect example of Dr. Hunter's 'Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator' topic, you also provide a perfect example of the arrogance associated with such thinking that you can devise a better purpose for your life than the perfect purpose God has set for you. As far as you have a 'personal' purpose that deviates from God's perfect purpose has for your life, it will lead to a less perfect life than you could have had. Come on Ian, think about it, Do you really think that you are wiser than God who created this universe and all life in it?
Delete1 Corinthians 2:9
"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"--
notes:
It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
Seeing Relativity
http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions
Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer)
So you would be content to know that your only purpose was to worship your Creator? You would be - are - happy to play your part as a member of an adoring audience created to flatter your Creator's ego? Even if we put it more kindly and say your God craves a loving relationship with His creatures it still comes down to the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIt also stands in direct conflict with the Christian concept of God. This holds that God is a necessary being. Such a being would be the exception to Gồdel's Incompleteness Theorems in that it would be entirely self-contained. There would be no need to appeal to anything beyond to explain it. It would not be contingent upon, not dependent in any way upon anything beyond itself. All its needs would be met from internal resources.
It would have no need, therefore, to create anything let alone Universe populated with puny little creatures like us.
So your main argument against God is to say you don't want to flatter the Creator's ego? It's pretty obvious that it is not the Creator's ego which is the problem here Ian!
DeleteWhat the sinner who has lost all control of self to sin understands, but the sinner, who does not think he is 'really' a sinner, who is under the illusion that he is controlling his sin does not understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full authority of heaven to relieve himself of the horrid torment of the cross but chose to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome sin, and death, in their entirety, for our behalf. Love is the only proper response.
The Contradiction of the Cross
“On the cross, our false dependencies are revealed. On the cross, our illusions are killed off. On the cross, our small self dies so that the true self, the God-given self, can emerge. On the cross, we give up the fantasy that we are in control, and the death of this fantasy central to acceptance. The cross is, above all, a place of powerlessness. Here is the final proof that our own feeble powers can no more alter life’s trajectory than a magnet can pull down the moon. Here is the death of the ego, of the self that insists on being in charge, the self that continually tries to impose its own idea of order and righteousness on the world.
The cross is a place of contradiction. For the powerlessness of the cross, if fully embraced, takes us to a place of power. This is the great mystery at the heart of the Christian faith, from Jesus to Martin Luther Kind Jr., the mystery of the power of powerlessness. As long as I am preoccupied with the marshaling of my own feeble powers, there will be no way for God’s power to flow through me. As long as I am getting in my own way, I cannot live in the power of God’s way.”
– Parker Palmer, The Promise of Paradox, Pg 46-47
http://www.findingrhythm.com/blog/?p=2183
Heather Williams – Hallelujah – Lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2uM0L3Y1A
bornagain77 May 12, 2012 3:44 AM
DeleteSo your main argument against God is to say you don't want to flatter the Creator's ego? It's pretty obvious that it is not the Creator's ego which is the problem here Ian!
One of my arguments against the Christian concept of God is that His claimed purpose in creating us is banal. We are supposed to believe He created this entire vast Universe and populated it with tiny, insignificant creatures like us just so He could have some creatures who would love Him and He could love back? Seriously? That is what you are saying this whole thing is about, nothing more?
What the sinner who has lost all control of self to sin understands, but the sinner, who does not think he is 'really' a sinner, who is under the illusion that he is controlling his sin does not understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full authority of heaven to relieve himself of the horrid torment of the cross but chose to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome sin, and death, in their entirety, for our behalf. Love is the only proper response.
According to Christian theology Jesus Christ is the Son of God, in other words God born on Earth in human form. He is supposed to have allowed Himself to be crucified to atone for our sins even though He could have chosen otherwise.
Yet, whether we regard them as two separate entities or just one, either or both knew exactly who they were. They knew full well that, whether or not the physical body of Christ was killed, they were immortal. They cannot be destroyed. There was absolutely no risk of God the Father suffering the pain and sense of permanent loss felt by human parents when a child is taken from them. From the perspective of an immortal and all-powerful deity, the crucifixion was little more than street theater.
You state:
ReplyDelete'We are supposed to believe He created this entire vast Universe and populated it with tiny, insignificant creatures like us just so He could have some creatures who would love Him and He could love back? Seriously?'
And yet the evidence states:
I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Psalm 33:13-15
The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
The following site is very interesting;
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle;
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
DeleteDr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978
"The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude."
Prof. Henry F. Schaefer
The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
DeleteTHE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31
William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity."
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video
http://vimeo.com/34084462
Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg
Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit