Religion One of the all-time great bakes

[SergioGeorgini]

Lets not get confused between a Christian god and a supreme being.

Whilst it is possible to argue that some form of supreme being/entity exists, it is definitely not a Christian god.

As a starting point, you just need to look at the bible.

There is an abundance of logical flaws and inconsistencies in the bible.

Given that is meant to be the "word of god", yet has changed so many times, this is a starting point to disproving the hypothesis of a Christian god.

I agree that the evidence for deism is stronger than for any particular god including the Christian God. Even Richard Dawkins says that a respectable case can be made for deism, presumably on the basis of the cosmological evidence.

But yeah, belief in a particular, personal God including the Christian God, is a much bigger step to take; I acknowlege that.

However, putting aside the alleged inconsistencies in the bible (and I'd love to deal with those in another thread) in my view there are good arguments to be made for Christianity in 2 main respects:

1. historical evidence for resurrection; and
2. Christianity best explains the problems of the human condition and how the gap between the fallible human level (the way things are) and the 'divine' or 'perfect' level (the way things ought to be) can be closed.

Neither of these arguments rely on the innerancy of the Bible and can be couched in purely secular terms.

I hope to expand on 2 later perhaps.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

I'm sorry but none of this is evidence for god. You can't make the jump from "we don't know" to "god did it". You may as well say fairies did it, using exactly the same 'evidence'.

Disagree.

We know certain things about the universe, let's take for example the fine tuning of the at least 6 constants that need to be set precisely at the time of the Big Bang.

The fact of this 'fine tuning' requires an explanation. We can't simply say 'Well, that's just the way it is'.

So we ask ourselves what is the best explanation for this fact?

I'm positing that there is a very powerful super-intelligent/rational transcendant entity that exists outside of the time and space that is responsible for setting these constsnts precisely what they are and causing the universe to come into effect.

That explanation is far superior to 'magical fairies did it' because magical fairies (assuming you believe in them) live within space and time; they are products of the universe. So they couldn't have created the universe because they don't transcend the universe.

Now of course you might turn around and say that 'My magic fairies do transcend the universe'. If that's the case then you are simply agreeing with the God hypothesis that there was an intelligent designer and disagreeing on the identity of the intelligent designer.

In either case the fact of fine tuning remains evidence that an Intelligent Designer created the universe. I'm just calling that Intelligent Designer 'God'. You might call it 'magic fairy'. Fine. But in doing so you're still acknowledging that there's evidence for an intelligent designer.

All I'm doing is taking the next step, from Intelligent Designer / deistic god / transcendent fairy or whatever else you want to label the Supreme Being - to a Christian God based on additional, non-cosmological arguments, from philosophy and history.

 

[WCEforeverman]

* Big Bang (everything in nature that had a beginning must have a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe needs a cause. That cause cannot be natural, because the universe encompasses all of nature, so the cause must be a non-natural one. I'm calling that non-natural cause 'God').

This just means that the cause of the big bang was something different from your definition of natural. It is also a leap of faith to call that act God.

* Fine tuning - the universe appears to be fine tuned for life. There is a 'recipe' for the universe that if altered in the tiniest way, means that no life would be possible. The best explanation for that fact is that a super-powerful entity that transcends nature (an intelligent 'fine-tuner') is responsible (given the improbability or implausibiity of the alternative explanations).

Does the universe seem fine-tuned for life? If so there seems to be a monumental waste of space out there.

I don't have any doubt that the conditions for life on Earth and in our galaxy and in our universe are very specific, and the chances of these conditions occurring are infinitesimally small, but that isn't evidence of a creator.

Just a highly unlikely probability occurring. If given enough infinite time all probabilities eventually occur.

Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare and all that.

* Arguments for biological design (complexity of cell and DNA, etc)

Most arguments for biological design have well and truly been debunked and those that remain are only a 'god of the gaps' argument. If 99% of the evidence points to one conclusion why would you trust the 1% which is so far unexplained?

Evolution is scientifically regarded as fact.

* Historical facts about Jesus (done in this thread)

Seeing as you consider the big bang as evidence I am assuming that you are an old earth creationist. Which means you believe the earth is 4 and a half billion years old?

Why then did it take over 4 billions years for humans to exist? Why did God and then wait 100,000 years into humanity's existence before he let himself be known?

Why did he decide to reveal himself in one of the most superstitious, illiterate parts of the world? Why not in China where most people could read and write?

It would seem strange that God would be watching people suffer in misery for thousands of years before he decided to show everyone the correct way to live their life.

Did you grow up in a Christian household?

 

[Sloth]

I'm positing that there is a very powerful super-intelligent/rational transcendant entity that exists outside of the time and space that is responsible for setting these constsnts precisely what they are and causing the universe to come into effect.

how can you possibly know this?

That explanation is far superior to 'magical fairies did it' because magical fairies (assuming you believe in them) live within space and time; they are products of the universe. So they couldn't have created the universe because they don't transcend the universe.

LOL wut? Did you just say magical fairies live within space and time? Again, how can you possibly know this?

Now of course you might turn around and say that 'My magic fairies do transcend the universe'. If that's the case then you are simply agreeing with the God hypothesis that there was an intelligent designer and disagreeing on the identity of the intelligent designer.

You can't possibly know whether magical fairies exist either within or outside the universe. They are indistinguisable from your god in that regard.

In either case the fact of fine tuning remains evidence that an Intelligent Designer created the universe. I'm just calling that Intelligent Designer 'God'. You might call it 'magic fairy'. Fine. But in doing so you're still acknowledging that there's evidence for an intelligent designer.

The universe is no more fine tuned than the grains of sand on a beach are. What are the chances they would end up in exactly the positions they did? Who cares?

All I'm doing is taking the next step, from Intelligent Designer / deistic god / transcendent fairy or whatever else you want to label the Supreme Being - to a Christian God based on additional, non-cosmological arguments, from philosophy and history.

Mate you can't even take the first step let alone the next one.

 

[Partridge]

Evolution is scientifically regarded as fact.

You could sensibly end the discussion right now. It is fact. The rest is superstitious and illogical nonsense.

Why then did it take over 4 billions years for humans to exist? Why did God and then wait 100,000 years into humanity's existence before he let himself be known?

Why did he decide to reveal himself in one of the most superstitious, illiterate parts of the world? Why not in China where most people could read and write?

It would seem strange that God would be watching people suffer in misery for thousands of years before he decided to show everyone the correct way to live their life.

All very good questions. Don't hold your breath waiting for answers. A casual look at the Old Testament reveals God had very little problems watching (or conducting) massacres on a pretty impressive scale.

 

[omit]

Serg - I've already explained to you the logical flaws in the fine tuner argument, you still using this is somewhat distressing.

As for the kalam argument - It relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.

From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"

The moments of time are ordered by past present and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet existed and is not real.

Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)

from start to finish the kalam argument is predicated upon a-theory time. On b-theory time the universe does not infact come into being or become actual at the big bang. It just exists tenselessy as a 4 dimentional space-time block which is infinitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless then the universe never really came into being. Therefor a quest for a cause of it's coming into being are misconceived.

Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.

From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)

So we can see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneousity, but that two events, which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisanged from a system which is in motion relatively to that

In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)

So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?

Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)

we have good reason for believing neo-lorentzian theory is correct, namely, the existence of god in a-theory time implies it

Hold on there. so god proves that neo-lorentzian relativity is correct, which proves a-theory time is correct, which proves the kalam argument is correct, which proves god is real.

Now that's just one big circular reasoning fail right there

 

[Max zero]

For an explanation to be the best explanation, you don't need an explanation of the explanation.

Well yeah you do. If the explanation does not explain anything/make sense what have you gained?

Unknown cause -> Known effect
God -> Know effect
Unknown cause -> God
Unknown cause -> God -> Know effect

Sticking in God just puts a pointless extra step in the road to knowledge. Simply replaced one unknown with another.

 

[Max zero]

Now that's just one big circular reasoning fail right there

That's what happens when someone tries to fit the supernatural into the natural world. The rules which govern the natural world don't apply and you get all sorts of weird reasoning and contradictions.

How does a poltergeist throw things when it does not have a body?

 

[Clash Hendrix]

I'm positing that there is a very powerful super-intelligent/rational transcendant entity that exists outside of the time and space that is responsible for setting these constsnts precisely what they are and causing the universe to come into effect.

That explanation is far superior to 'magical fairies did it' because magical fairies (assuming you believe in them) live within space and time; they are products of the universe. So they couldn't have created the universe because they don't transcend the universe.

Ok then, very powerful super-intelligent/rational transcendant fairies. Done.

 

[Max zero]

Ok then, very powerful super-intelligent/rational transcendant fairies. Done.

Indeed that's the lovely thing with supernatural answers, you can change them anyway you want. The only limit is your imagination.

Space fairies couldn't of created the universe? Well how about Space Fairies THAT EXIST OUTSIDE OF SPACE AND TIME!? Stupid skeptics got no answer for that have they?

 

[SergioGeorgini]

This just means that the cause of the big bang was something different from your definition of natural. It is also a leap of faith to call that act God.

Right, but what I am saying is that the scientific fact of the Big Bang is completely consistent with the Judeo-Christian idea of God creating the universe out of nothing. It doesn't prove God of course but it's a fact that I think points in that direction. I feel completely justified in my belief because the science does not contradict it; in fact, the science supports it.

Now of course we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but there are a few theories. Personally I think the creation theory is more plausible than the main alternative, being that the universe and all of its laws burst into existence from a random 'quantum fluctuation'. If you think that is a plausible explanation then I would suggest that is no less a leap of faith than to suggest God did it, particularly in light of other facts that also point in the direction of God. (Remember my case for God is a cumulative one; it does not rely on one particular fact or argument).

Does the universe seem fine-tuned for life? If so there seems to be a monumental waste of space out there.

Your argument is a product of old science. According to current science the universe has to be just as large as it is to produce any life at all. As Dinesh D'Sozua explains:

The Copernican revolution can be understood as establishing the principle of mediocrity. This principle simply says that human being are nothing special. We inhabit a tiny insignificant planet in a relatively undistinguished galaxy in a distant suburb of an unimaginably vast universe.
...
In recent years, physics has [overthrown] the principle of mediocrity and affirms man's special place in the cosmos. It turns out that the vast size and great age of our universe are not coincidental. They are the indispensable conditions for the existence of life on earth. In other words, the universe has to be just as big as it is and just as old as it is in order to contain living inhabitants like you and me.

I don't have any doubt that the conditions for life on Earth and in our galaxy and in our universe are very specific, and the chances of these conditions occurring are infinitesimally small, but that isn't evidence of a creator.

I think it is. The fact of our existence cries out for an explanation, particularly as the odds of it are so infinitesimally small. What is the best explanation for it? The improbability of these perfectly fine tuned conditions occuring by chance is evidence for a creator.

For example, if we explored Mars and we found an acquarium set up with soils, water, plants, insects, etc, that is evidence that alien life exists because the odds of those conditions occuring without intelligent intervention are infinitesmially small. Again, not proof, but evidence that points in the direction of God and away from a natural explanation.

So the improbability of our existence is evidence for God. If you heard about a man who bought a lottery ticket in every state of America and won them all, would you think that was down to pure luck, or would you suspect some kind of "intelligently designed" fix?

According to agnostic physist Paul Davies:

"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

Just a highly unlikely probability occurring. If given enough infinite time all probabilities eventually occur.

Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare and all that.

If you are suggesting that our universe (which is of course had a beginning so is not infinitely old) is part of a larger 'cosmos' that contains an infinite number of universes, where is the evidence for this?

In any event, I'd suggest that it takes just as much faith, perhaps more, to believe that our universe is one of an infinite number, and that we got the lucky numbers in the great cosmic rolling of the dice, rather than a Creator God that created the universe for us.

Most arguments for biological design have well and truly been debunked and those that remain are only a 'god of the gaps' argument. If 99% of the evidence points to one conclusion why would you trust the 1% which is so far unexplained?

Evolution is scientifically regarded as fact.

Firstly, evolution is not inconsistent with theism, let alone Christian theism.

The theory of biological evolution really is irrelevant to the truth of Christian theism. Genesis admits of all manner of interpretations and one is by no means committed to 6 day creationism. This point was made as far back as the AD 300s, way before Darwin, so this is in no way a retreat from modern science.

Any issue I have with evolution is not based on theology but based on science. What evolution posits is fantastically improbable. I might even be tempted to go as far to say that evolution, if it indeed is a fact as a you suggest (debatable) it is actually evidence for God, given the improbabilities involved. So if evolution did occur, it was literally a miracle, and therefore evidence of God!

In any event, evolution as we understand it may be true as far as it goes (although there are good arguments, particularly probability arguments, against evolution) however what I am referring to is the improbability of the origin of life, in particular the cell.

Evolution theorises how life form A became life form B. It doesn't deal with the origin of life (cf abiogenesis). Evolution assumes the existence of a self-replicating cell with all the complexity of a computer.

I am particularly interested in the language contained in DNA. I find it highly unlikely that such a complex language could have developed through evolution.

So in addition to the improbabilities of the life-permitting universe being high enough in the first place, we have further improbability of the evolution of the cell and complex life forms layered upon the other improbabilities.

Seeing as you consider the big bang as evidence I am assuming that you are an old earth creationist. Which means you believe the earth is 4 and a half billion years old?

Yes, of course.

Why then did it take over 4 billions years for humans to exist? Why did God and then wait 100,000 years into humanity's existence before he let himself be known?

Why did he decide to reveal himself in one of the most superstitious, illiterate parts of the world? Why not in China where most people could read and write?

It would seem strange that God would be watching people suffer in misery for thousands of years before he decided to show everyone the correct way to live their life.

Firstly, your objections here in relation to the efficiency of creation would only be of concern to a person with limited time and resources. If God does exist, He would have unlimited time and unlimited resources. So that objection doesn't hold I think.

You also ask why did God wait so long before sending Christ. The crucial thing here is not the time involved but the population of the Earth, given that God wants to save as many souls as possible. It is estimated that the number of people who have ever lived on this planet is about 105 billion. Only 2% of them would have been born before Jesus.

So God's timing could not have been more perfect. Christ showed up just before the exponential explosion of the world's population. The Bible says in the "fullness of time" God sent forth his Son. When he did come the nation of Israel had been prepared, the Roman peace dominated the Mediteranean world, it was an age of literacy and learning; basically the stage was set for the advent of God's Son into the world.

Given that Christianity has spread through most of the world, seems to me that God did a pretty good job getting the message out to as many people as possible.

Did you grow up in a Christian household?

No, most of my family are atheists.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Serg - I've already explained to you the logical flaws in the fine tuner argument, you still using this is somewhat distressing.

I'll have go back and check what you said because I don't recall them.

But I think the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is well established by science.

According to agnostic physicist Paul Davies

'There is now broad agreement between among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects fine tuned for life.'

If you can show me a quote from a similarly well credentialed physist or cosmologist that the consensus is that the universe is not fine tuned for life, then I'll revisit the premise of my argument.

As for the kalam argument - It relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.

From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"

Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)

Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.

From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)

In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)

So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?

Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)

Hold on there. so god proves that neo-lorentzian relativity is correct, which proves a-theory time is correct, which proves the kalam argument is correct, which proves god is real.

Now that's just one big circular reasoning fail right there

I'm not sure that I argued that the kalam cosmological argument was sound? I merely said that the fact the universe had a beginning tends to point to God (the Kalam cosmologial argument is much more sophisticated and puts the case more strongly). Acknowledge though that they are similar.

Anyway, theories of time are not my strong suit, but I'll have a read of the criticisms of the KCA and come back with some comments if I can.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Ok then, very powerful super-intelligent/rational transcendant fairies. Done.

Pretty piss weak effort there mate.

I specifically addressed the point you make in my post which you selectively quoted.

I'm positing that there is a very powerful super-intelligent/rational transcendant entity that exists outside of the time and space that is responsible for setting these constsnts precisely what they are and causing the universe to come into effect.

That explanation is far superior to 'magical fairies did it' because magical fairies (assuming you believe in them) live within space and time; they are products of the universe. So they couldn't have created the universe because they don't transcend the universe.

Now of course you might turn around and say that 'My magic fairies do transcend the universe'. If that's the case then you are simply agreeing with the God hypothesis that there was an intelligent designer and disagreeing on the identity of the intelligent designer.

In either case the fact of fine tuning remains evidence that an Intelligent Designer created the universe. I'm just calling that Intelligent Designer 'God'. You might call it 'magic fairy'. Fine. But in doing so you're still acknowledging that there's evidence for an intelligent designer.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Indeed that's the lovely thing with supernatural answers, you can change them anyway you want. The only limit is your imagination.

Bullshit. I've already dealt with this facile argument. Any explanation of something is only taken seriously when it is reasonable given a set of background facts. All possible natural explanations are not equally valid. In the same way, all non-natural explanations are not equally valid.

There's a reason why the God hypothesis is taken seriously by scientists and philosophers whereas any other random old crap like fairies is not.

 

[WCEforeverman]

Right, but what I am saying is that the scientific fact of the Big Bang is completely consistent with the Judeo-Christian idea of God creating the universe out of nothing. It doesn't prove God of course but it's a fact that I think points in that direction. I feel completely justified in my belief because the science does not contradict it; in fact, the science supports it.

This is where we will disagree. Just because we don't know the cause of something, it doesn't mean that it's cause is super-natural. If you read Hawkings latest book he states that the laws of physics can explain how a universe of space, time and matter could emerge spontaneously, without the need for God.

Once again this is a 'god of the gaps' argument. I don't know so god done it.

Now of course we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but there are a few theories. Personally I think the creation theory is more plausible than the main alternative, being that the universe and all of its laws burst into existence from a random 'quantum fluctuation'. If you think that is a plausible explanation then I would suggest that is no less a leap of faith than to suggest God did it, particularly in light of other facts that also point in the direction of God. (Remember my case for God is a cumulative one; it does not rely on one particular fact or argument).

Why is the creation theory more plausible?

Your argument is a product of old science. According to current science the universe has to be just as large as it is to produce any life at all. As Dinesh D'Sozua explains:

Ah yes, good old Dinesh.

I suggest you read some Victor Stenger: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

I think it is. The fact of our existence cries out for an explanation, particularly as the odds of it are so infinitesimally small. What is the best explanation for it? The improbability of these perfectly fine tuned conditions occuring by chance is evidence for a creator.

Why does our existence cry out for an explanation?

Once again you fall back on the fine tuned argument. Why isn't life as we know it fine tuned for the universe?

To quote Stenger:

...modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.

For example, if we explored Mars and we found an acquarium set up with soils, water, plants, insects, etc, that is evidence that alien life exists because the odds of those conditions occuring without intelligent intervention are infinitesmially small. Again, not proof, but evidence that points in the direction of God and away from a natural explanation.

That is a poor example of the watchmakers analogy: That complexity needs design.

Evolution has refuted this argument.

So the improbability of our existence is evidence for God. If you heard about a man who bought a lottery ticket in every state of America and one them all, would you think that was down to pure luck, or would you suspect some kind of "intelligently designed" fix?

It isn't. It isn't evidence of God or a designer. That is the leap of faith that theist make, where because the chances are low something must have influenced the result.

According to agnostic physist Paul Davies:





If you are suggesting that our universe (which is of course had a beginning so is not infinitely old) is part of a larger 'cosmos' that contains an infinite number of universes, where is the evidence for this?

See above. I suggest you should read some M-theory.

In any event, I'd suggest that it takes just as much faith, perhaps more, to believe that our universe is one of an infinite number, and that we got the lucky numbers in the great cosmic rolling of the dice, rather than a Creator God that created the universe for us.

Once again you are using the flawed reasoning as demonstrated above.

Firstly, evolution is not inconsistent with theism, let alone Christian theism.

The theory of biological evolution really is irrelevant to the truth of Christian theism. Genesis admits of all manner of interpretations and one is by no means committed to 6 day creationism. This point was made as far back as the AD 300s, way before Darwin, so this is in no way a retreat from modern science.

Any issue I have with evolution is not based on theology but based on science. What evolution posits is fantastically improbable. I might even be tempted to go as far to say that evolution, if it indeed is a fact as a you suggest (debatable) it is actually evidence for God, given the improbabilities involved. So if evolution did occur, it was literally a miracle, and therefore evidence of God!

Once again your flawed probabilities argument.

In any event, evolution as we understand it may be true as far as it goes (although there are good arguments, particularly probability arguments, against evolution) however what I am referring to is the improbability of the origin of life, in particular the cell.

Evolution theorises how life form A became life form B. It doesn't deal with the origin of life (cf abiogenesis). Evolution assumes the existence of a self-replicating cell with all the complexity of a computer.

I didn't say it did. Evolution is just a mechanism.

I am particularly interested in the language contained in DNA. I find it highly unlikely that such a complex language could have developed through evolution.

So in addition to the improbabilities of the life-permitting universe being high enough in the first place, we have further improbability of the evolution of the cell and complex life forms layered upon the other improbabilities.

Once again a watchmakers analogy.

Firstly, your objections here in relation to the efficiency of creation would only be of concern to a person with limited time and resources. If God does exist, He would have unlimited time and unlimited resources. So that objection doesn't hold I think.

You also ask why did God wait so long before sending Christ. The crucial thing here is not the time involved but the population of the Earth, given that God wants to save as many souls as possible. It is estimated that the number of people who have ever lived on this planet is about 105 billion. Only 2% of them would have been born before Jesus.

So God's timing could not have been more perfect. Christ showed up just before the exponential explosion of the world's population. The Bible says in the "fullness of time" God sent forth his Son. When he did come the nation of Israel had been prepared, the Roman peace dominated the Mediteranean world, it was an age of literacy and learning; basically the stage was set for the advent of God's Son into the world.

Given that Christianity has spread through most of the world, seems to me that God did a pretty good job getting the message out to as many people as possible.

So why not send Jesus as soon as people began to sin? To hell with the 2%? Is that a kind God?

And here we come to the crux of the argument. Belief. You believe God exists. You had a hunch about God and looked for evidence. Belief is more powerful that any evidence to the contrary that could be presented to you.

Your arguments for God (I am loathe to call them 'evidence') are based around old analogies and arguments that have been around for quite some time. They have been refuted and argued by much smarter men than me. I have probably done them a disservice here, but I honestly suggest that you look them up.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

This is where we will disagree. Just because we don't know the cause of something, it doesn't mean that it's cause is super-natural. If you read Hawkings latest book he states that the laws of physics can explain how a universe of space, time and matter could emerge spontaneously, without the need for God.

Once again this is a 'god of the gaps' argument. I don't know so god done it.

I'm not suggesting that just because we don't know the cause of something then the cause must be supernatural. That's not an argument that I made so not sure where you get that from.

Hawking suggests in his latest book that our universe is one universe in a broader multiverse. He has no evidence for this, it is pure speculation. He also posits that our universe, like all universes in the multiverse, popped into existence out of nothing by way of a quantum fluctuation. Your welcome to believe this of course, but it can in no way be regarded as science.

Why is the creation theory more plausible?

I find it easier to believe that an Intelligent Designer created the universe as opposed to the theory that the universe popped into existence from nothing as a result of a random quantum fluctuation and that we are a single universe among trillions of others. Not least because there's not a shred of empircal evidence of the multiverse / quantum fluctuation theory. The God theory is elegant and simple and makes sense of the world that I see.

The multiverse theory violates Occam's razor (the logic of simplicity). The multiverse involves the invention of a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain a single case (our universe) when there is a much simpler, more obvious explanation available. That explanation is simply that the universe looks like it was designed for life because....well, it was.

Ah yes, good old Dinesh.

I suggest you read some Victor Stenger: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

I was just explaining to you why the universe is so big - it's because it has to be for life to be possible. D'Souza is summarising the science in this area.

Why does our existence cry out for an explanation?

Because of the incredible improbability of it.

Once again you fall back on the fine tuned argument. Why isn't life as we know it fine tuned for the universe?

Because any life at all, not just human life but ANY life, would not be possible if not for the particular constants/laws of nature that we do have. If the expansion rate of the universe was a whisker higher or lower there would be no universe and no life.

So there's clearly a huge improbability to be explained here. Why do you think scientists came up with the multiverse in the first place? It is a response to the fact that the universe is fined tuned for life and that this fact is incredibly improbable. If the universe wasn't fine tuned for life you wouldn't have Hawking or any other physicist positing infinite universes.

That is a poor example of the watchmakers analogy: That complexity needs design.

Evolution has refuted this argument.

No. Evolution (and I will concede for argument's sake that evolution is true, notwithstanding the problems with it) may explain why biological organisms appear to be designed, but the appearance of design in the universe cannot be explained by evolution.

It isn't. It isn't evidence of God or a designer. That is the leap of faith that theist make, where because the chances are low something must have influenced the result.

See above. I suggest you should read some M-theory.

I'm familiar with it. Do you really think that there are an infinite number of universes with each one being caused by a quantum fluctuation? (Be interesed to get your explanation of what exactly a quantum fluctuation is by the way).

Once again you are using the flawed reasoning as demonstrated above.

Why is the probability argument flawed? Many of the world's best scientists concede that the appearance of design is overwhelming and that the improbability of the universe and its fine tuned laws point to a Intelligent Designer.

Once again your flawed probabilities argument.

Explain why it is flawed.

Once again a watchmakers analogy.

See above. The watchmaker analogy is perfectly valid when applied to the appearance of design in the universe.

So why not send Jesus as soon as people began to sin? To hell with the 2%? Is that a kind God?

I have no idea, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether God exists. The character of God has nothing to do with whether he exists or not. But off the top of my head I would suggest that to maximise the number of people saved God had to wait unitl human civilization had developed enough to provide for the written word, etc (see earlier post re population explosion).

And here we come to the crux of the argument. Belief. You believe God exists. You had a hunch about God and looked for evidence. Belief is more powerful that any evidence to the contrary that could be presented to you.

Your arguments for God (I am loathe to call them 'evidence') are based around old analogies and arguments that have been around for quite some time.

No, it's actrually the opposite. If you're familiar with Christian apologetics you will know that they rely on modern advances in sciences, not 'old analogies'. There are very sophisticated arguments for theism drawing upon philosophy and cutting edge science.

They have been refuted and argued by much smarter men than me. I have probably done them a disservice here, but I honestly suggest that you look them up.

I've spent a lot of time reading about and thinking about these questions. I'm familiar with most of the arguments. I don't think you've done them too much of a disservice; the problem is not in the presentation of the arguments it is with the arguments themselves.

I'm yet to be convinced that atheism is true. Christianity has a whole lot more going for it, not just from a practical perspective (making your life better) but it's also supported by a remarkable amount of evidence.

 

[Sloth]

Bullshit. I've already dealt with this facile argument. Any explanation of something is only taken seriously when it is reasonable given a set of background facts. All possible natural explanations are not equally valid. In the same way, all non-natural explanations are not equally valid.

oh yes they are. They are all equally un-testable.

There's a reason why the God hypothesis is taken seriously by scientists and philosophers whereas any other random old crap like fairies is not.

LOL I look forward to reading about it in Nature.

 

[evo]

He also posits that our universe, like all universes in the multiverse, popped into existence out of nothing by way of a quantum fluctuation.

Lying for Jebus again?

You can't even get your misrepresentation of his argument to sound credible.

If this universe came from a multiverse via a quantum fluctuation then that's "out of nothing".

 

[Partridge]

I am particularly interested in the language contained in DNA. I find it highly unlikely that such a complex language could have developed through evolution.

So that's it? Because you find something unlikely an invisible being must have created it? When in doubt, God did it. Makes a lot of sense.

Given that Christianity has spread through most of the world, seems to me that God did a pretty good job getting the message out to as many people as possible.

Really? We've had 2000 years of constant warfare, especially between warring religious parties utterly convinced that their version of the tooth fairy is the best. What is this wonderful message? Believe in our god or we'll burn you at the stake? Nice baby son you have there, you need to now torture him by slicing off part of his genitals, all to appease my peaceful and kindhearted supreme being.

You're right about getting the message out though, I can't think of another group so insistent in ramming their beliefs down other people's throats.

 

[Max zero]

Bullshit. I've already dealt with this facile argument. Any explanation of something is only taken seriously when it is reasonable given a set of background facts. All possible natural explanations are not equally valid. In the same way, all non-natural explanations are not equally valid.

There's a reason why the God hypothesis is taken seriously by scientists and philosophers whereas any other random old crap like fairies is not.

Prove to me that the universe wasn't created and fine tuned by transcendent space fairies.

All supernatural explanations are equally valid because they are all unfalsifiable. If they were falsifiable they wouldn't be supernatural.

Replacing one unknown with another is not an answer.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Lying for Jebus again?

You can't even get your misrepresentation of his argument to sound credible.

If this universe came from a multiverse via a quantum fluctuation then that's "out of nothing".

Don't be a douche bag.

You meant 'if this universe came from a multiverse via a quantum fluctuation then that's not out of nothing'. See how easy is to make a typo? Doesn't mean it's a misrepresentation.

Anyway, Hawking has suggested that the universe popped into existence out of nothing.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/806-stephen-hawking-says-universe-created-from-nothing

See also

http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/stephen-hawking/the-grand-design/_/R-400000000000000270303

Mlodinow describe would say that the fact that the past takes no definite form means that we create history by observing it, rather than that history creates us. The authors further explain that we ourselves are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe, and show how quantum theory predicts the "multiverse"--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature.

So don't accuse me of lying. I don't lie. I post alot on these subjects, if I make a mistake it will be an honest one, so point it out to me without being a tool, if you can.

 

[evo]

Anyway, Hawking has suggested that the universe popped into existence out of nothing.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/806-stephen-hawking-says-universe-created-from-nothing

I've re-read that speech and honestly can't see where he says it came out of nothing. Can you point me to the specific paragraph?

He talks of it being a result of quantum fluctuations and gave the metaphor of steam bubbles. How are they "nothing"?

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Prove to me that the universe wasn't created and fine tuned by transcendent space fairies.

All supernatural explanations are equally valid because they are all unfalsifiable. If they were falsifiable they wouldn't be supernatural.

Some natural explanations are also unfalsifiable, but they are considered valid.

The multiverse is unfalsifiable and untestable, but it is considered by many scientists to be a reasonable and valid explanation for the fact that the universe appears to be fine tuned for life. It's valid even though it is unfalsifiable because it's an inferrence from the known facts that is considered by some to be the best explanation of those facts.

Can you see where your logic breaks down?

Replacing one unknown with another is not an answer.

Have a think again about dark matter and dark energy and how an explanation for something can still be the best explanation even though the explanation itself can't be explained.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

I've re-read that speech and honestly can't see where he says it came out of nothing. Can you point me to the specific paragraph?

He talks of it being a result of quantum fluctuations and gave the metaphor of steam bubbles. How are they "nothing"?

If you spend 2 minutes of time researching the topic you would see that Hawking says the following in his book The Grand Design:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going

You could also read the many reviews of The Grand Design to see that Hawking suggests the universe popped into existence out of nothing.

Eg.

The final chapter is short...It closes with this thesis: because on a global scale the negative and positive energy of the universe cancels out, it is possible (entailed?) that universes (though not the objects within them) will spontaneously arise out of nothing in accord with M Theory. This idea isn’t new either, by the way. Victor Stenger has written extensively on this subject of universes popping into existence out of “nothing.”

http://www.galilean-library.org/sit...iews/the-grand-design-by-stephen-hawking-r124

With that background, Hawking and Mlodinow get to the real meat of their book: the way theories about quantum mechanics and relativity came together to shape our understanding of how our universe (and possibly others) formed out of nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302118.html

Any chance of getting an apology?

Anyway, it all depends on your definition of "nothing". Is a "quantum vacuum" nothing? Is empty space with nothing but "quantum potential" nothing? Most would say 'yes'.

But I don't want to descend into a debate about what constitutes 'nothing'. My main point was that the God hypothesis is more plausible than the universe and all of its fine tuned laws popping into existence from a quantum fluctuation. Whether that quantum fluctuation occured in 'nothing' or some form undefined 'foam' substance is beside the point. I think they're both equally implausible.

By the way, where do you think these 'bubbles' of universes came from? Have they been there for eternity? What caused them?

If the laws of gravity created the universe, where did those laws come from? These are the most obvious questions yet Hawking doesn't appear to address them.

 

[Pie eyed]

Evolution theorises how life form A became life form B. It doesn't deal with the origin of life (cf abiogenesis). Evolution assumes the existence of a self-replicating cell with all the complexity of a computer.

I am particularly interested in the language contained in DNA. I find it highly unlikely that such a complex language could have developed through evolution.

In a little under 100 years science has been able to create in a laboratory self replicating amino acids.* (in reality it takes less than 72 hours to make these from nothing more than chemicals commonly found in the early earth and electricity Nature has had 4.5 billion years longer to go the next step to a cell. If you want to hang your religious hat on anything hang it on "consciousness" as there is no great mystery regarding how simple life developed on earth.

DNA has an alphabet of four amino acids/nucleotides, five if you include Uracil.
You have in DNA, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine.
In mRNA Cytosine is replaced by Uracil.

In essence the arrangement of the four nucleotides of DNA is responsible for the transfer of all the information necessary to make a human being or any living organism. DNA is in fact an extremely sparse and efficient language. Simplicity, rather than a perceived intricacy is the key to accurate cell reproduction.

The individual bits of information required to make a copy of an amoeba takes up less than a single printed page in standard type.
The idea of complexity comes into play when you realise that the DNA code of an animal such as a human being contains the nearly every bit of redundant code from all of the living organisms it has evolved from since life began.
It is not the language which is complex at all, but the "book" which is enormously verbose and repetitive.

Life is made up of the commonest of materials. There is nothing even remotely chemically unusual or complex about the building blocks of life.

That we evolved, on a planet containing an abundance of both the chemicals we are made from and evolved to survive the conditions we find here is so unsurprising it beggars belief that most find it in anyway suggestive of a higher power.

I find it exponentially more surprising that a deity of some kind created the entire universe, of which even our galaxy is an infinitesimally small and average speck, waited the requisite 10 billion years for the formation and self destruction of the first geneariton of stars, just to create the basic building blocks of us, then wait another 4.25 billion years for evolution to create a standing ape for the inane purpose of giving us freewill and the ability to worship. This all for a tiny fraction of the time, simply to wipe out millions of us over the ensuing length of our existence, without rhyme or reason.

Why not just the Sun, the Earth and a human population from day one...14.5 billion years ago?

Why does a deity have to go to such extreme intricacy when he/she could simple make us appear, with simple clay and water biology, as suggested in the Bible?


In the universal scale of things our solar system is far less significant, even in just our galaxy, than the annihilation of neutrino in a star.

Supposedly we are "given" a higher purpose?

I think we give this to ourselves out of fear and arrogance.

Perhaps you could measure the 241.5 tonne loss of the earths mass last year from the souls of the 11.5 million cancer victims alone leaving to who knows where?