Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LinuxPup · 07-10-2002, 12:39 PM

Quote:

(1) There are a number of naturalistic scenarios in which the universe goes on forever, fluxing in and out of existence, or similar;

Explain this scenario in depth, and we'll see if it's one of the explanations that Ross talks about.

Quote:

Certainly there is good reason to believe in gods: indoctrination from birth, an extremely powerful force. But if you mean reasoning based on evidence and argument, well, then there is no reason at all to believe in any gods.

There's also the reason to believe in God based on evidence and reasoning. That's how myself and some of my friends came to a belief in God... Believe it or not, many have come to belief in God not by "indoctrination from birth", but by *evidence*. If there was no evidence for the existance of God, I can guarantee you that I'd be agreeing with you 100%.

Quote:

This claim makes me doubt Ross' qualification of an astrophysicist. Apparently he has never heard of cosmological models where the total energy is always zero, because the negative gravitational binding energy exactly balances the positive contributions.

How does this effect Ross' argument for the inverse proportionality of the mass of the particle? Also, no ad hominems. I have met Hugh Ross in person a couple times, as well as some of his collegues, and he's a very courteous gentlemen, and a more than competant scientist.

Quote:

A universe that operates by selection processes working under natural law will always appear to be fine-tuned.

If you're referring to biological special selection (if not, I apologize), then this does not explain the fine-tuning of non biological phenomen which are necessary for the existance of intelligent life.

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 02:48 PM

Explain this scenario in depth, and we'll see if it's one of the explanations that Ross talks about.

<shrug> The point is not which one is right -- there is no way to know -- but that Ross' interpretation is highly slanted:

"He states that there was never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe."

Science isn't done by stopping whenever something isn't understood, and assuming that some extra-natural force is at work. Of course such proposals exist to "find a way around an extra-natural origin." Under methodological naturalism, your supposed to keep trying to find natural explanation for phenomena. That's what science is about: the refusal to bow to ignorance and call it god.

There's also the reason to believe in God based on evidence and reasoning. That's how myself and some of my friends came to a belief in God... Believe it or not, many have come to belief in God not by "indoctrination from birth", but by *evidence*. If there was no evidence for the existance of God, I can guarantee you that I'd be agreeing with you 100%.

The evidence for your deity is the same for any deity; if you had been raised in Saudi, you'd be a Muslim. There is no evidence for gods. And the BB, as we saw, is certainly not evidence for yours. Converting to religion is a psychosocial event that has little to do with argumentation.

But if you want to put up the "evidence" that has convinced you, I'll be happy to show you where you're wrong. I assume that you'll deconvert if I do that?

Didn't think so.

If you're referring to biological special selection (if not, I apologize), then this does not explain the fine-tuning of non biological phenomen which are necessary for the existance of intelligent life.

I am not referring to biological selection alone. The universe as a whole runs on selection processes operating under constraint. Regardless of the nature of the constraints, so long as selection is lawful, any universe would look designed to an observer.

The reason things appear Designed is that the are evolved by selection processes to fit within those constraints. FTers have the process backwards -- it is not the universe which is Fine Tuned, but the things in it. Selection has Fine Tuned them to fit the universe. Under your view, the objects in the universe existed in some form prior to universe -- where? how?

In any case your claim about biological selection and Fine Tuning doesn't work. First, you don't know whether we are the only possible intelligent life. Obviously, given the 20 or so species in the Hominini, we are not -- assuming of course that we are what the Designer calls "intelligent." The Designer may well believe that ants are intelligent and humans not.

Second, you don't know that intelligent life is the reason the universe was erected. For all you know the Designer was interested in ball lightning or snowflakes or the aurora borealis, which, after all, exist in a much narrower range of conditions than life....

All we can say is that we are here, and we operate within known natural laws. We are certainly not designed, and I for one reject the kind of clockwork determinism that your hypothesis calls for.

Vorkosigan

eh · 07-10-2002, 02:52 PM

Reply to luvluv,

eh:

Can you link me to some information about inflation?

I would recommend <a href="http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm</a> for starters. I'll see if I can dig up some more links.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the origins of life, this too sounds a little far stretched. 15 billion years seems to be a long amount of time for life to evolve, and I don't ever recall reading about any scientists opposing the BB for this reason. Maybe in creationist la-la land, but not here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, 4.5 billion. As I noted above, due to geological conditions on earth, Ross actually cuts this to 40 million. I was wondering if anyone could respond to that portion of the book?

Well I don't think a steady state universe proposes a planet earth that has existed for an infinite amount of time, so what's the point? A steady state just deals with the universe as a whole.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strawman.

How so? Have a look at the defintion for magic and compare it to the description of God creating the universe. What is the big difference?

But at any rate, Ross was combining the Big Bang with the anthropic coincidences and combined they do make a rather potent appeal.

They make appeal to those wanting answers when we only have limited knowledge. How do we know an infinite amount of worlds are possible? Do we have a complete understanding of the very fabric of spacetime itself to make this claim? Not yet, so the anthropic claims are not that convincing for me.

I think what the BB certainly does is make naturalism untennable. If the universe did have a begining, Ross quotes Hawkings himself as saying that it wouldn't be irrational to assume that it had a beginner.

It's not irrational to assume a creator. But it is unneccessary, which is what Hawkings also says. Why can't he take quotes in their full context?

At any rate, if the universe has a begining, then there is something beyond the universe. That would be the undoing of naturalism.

Only if you're thinking in terms of pre Einstein concepts of space and time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The great majority of the book is Hugh Ross citing from peer reviewed scientific articles

That's not the point.

luvluv · 07-10-2002, 02:56 PM

I feel I must defend Ross a bit here: Ross is not arguing that the big bang alone accounts for strong evidence of a transcendant Creator, He argues that the big bang + the anthropic coincidences constitute evidence of design.

Vork, that was an interesting article. But still, it does seem that the "super" RNA theory is out the window, yes?

Also, you say that the transcendant creator is not evidence for the God of the Bible anymore than it is any other God. This is not quite true. Ross goes through several passages in the Bible that suggest that Yahweh resides outside of the universe, that the universe had a begining and is not eternal (that does in Hinduism), and that God exists outside of space-time. He says that the Bible is the most succesful holy book as far as the astronomical findings go.

Also, even if the Big Bang does not establish Yahweh or any other god, it still seems to me to undo naturalism. If the universe was created, or BEGUN, that seems to me to indicate that something other than this universe exists.

Quote:

I suggest you look up "extremophiles," bacteria that thrive in active volcanoes and other extreme environments. Obviously, one of the assumptions in your paragraph above is wrong. For example, the first solid crust appeared about 4 billion years ago, according to what I've seen.

Yeah but that would be a pretty audacious move to propose that extrmeophiles were the first organisms in the universe. The odds against the first form of life are tough enough without asking them to form inside lava. Wouldn't the lava pretty much destroy all of the working material. The only extremeophiles I've heard of lived on the EDGE of volcanoes, not actually in the molten rock.

Are you saying that scientists have found bacteria living inside molten rock?

I don't know from how long ago the solid crust appeared. I gave you Ross's sources on that particular point. One of those must have the answer. Probably one of these:

Quote:

from Manfred Schidlowski ("A 3,800-million-year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks" NATURE, 333 (1988) pages 313-318), S.J. Mojzsis (Evidence for Life on Earth Before 3,800 million Years Ago" Nature 384 (1996) pages 53-59),

If you subsribe to nature I guess you can look it up, or perhaps at the local library. (I know better than to even ask at my particular public library)

Quote:

Like many who study this, Rees has got things bass-ackwards. A universe that operates by selection processes working under natural law will always appear to be fine-tuned.

Here is what Ross had to say about that particular argument:

Quote:

Non-Theistic Responses

When it comes to the finely tuned characteristics of the universe, non-theists find themselves in a difficult spot. The evidence is too weighty and concrete to brush aside. The evidence is inanimate; so appeals to Darwinist hypotheses cannot be made. Appeals to near infinite time are thwarted by the proofs for time’s creation only a few billion years ago. The following three arguments seem to cover the range of non-theistic replies to the evidence for cosmic design:

Argument 1: We would not be here to observe the universe unless the extremely unlikely did take place.

The evidence for design is merely coincidental. Our existence simply testifies that the extremely unlikely did, indeed, take place by chance. In other words, we would not be here to report on the characteristics of the universe unless chance produced these highly unlikely properties.

Rebuttal: This argument is fundamentally an appeal to infinite chances, which already has been answered (see chapter 12). Another response has been developed by philosopher Richard Swinburne34 and summarized by another philosopher, William Lane Craig:

Suppose a hundred sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad, and the prisoner survives. The prisoner should not be surprised that he does not observe that he is dead. After all, if he were dead, he could not observe his death. Nonetheless, he should be surprised that he observes that he is alive.35

I do think it would be possible for a universe that works by selection and natural laws to not look fine-tuned in a scenario where life is not so fragile. I think the argument also comes from the degree of tuning on so many differentvariables. Of course we wouldn't be here unless we found those values, but that does not explain why those values are the way that they are. (Unless you are making a teleological argument).

Quote:

(1) There are a number of naturalistic scenarios in which the universe goes on forever, fluxing in and out of existence, or similar;

The book goes through most of the existing arguments for a fluctuating, oscilating, and/or bouncing universes. He uses the newest astronomical findings to dispute them. Though there was a bouncing universe theory recently proposed, (Ross goes through this proposal in a radio show on his website reasons.org) all of the proposals that had been in existence at the time of the book had been more or less debunked.

wordsmyth quotes Ross thusly:

Quote:

The uniformity, homogeneity, and mass density of the universe all must be precisely as they are for human life to be possible at any time in the universe’s history

To the which wordsmyth replies:

Quote:

This claim is completely absurd and I'm certain he cannot produce any evidence of a single practical theory from any respected scientist to support this.

Well, of course you are right. Given the universe as a created, planned event, it is impossible to draw up a theory to why it has to be that way (just as you could not describe a theory, through purely physical laws, to describe why a piece of sculpture I created had to be the way it is). The notion of design is a theory.

Moreover, Ross claims that the concensus on this theory from the astronomers point of view is a form of deism:

Quote:

God and the Astronomers

The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a profound theological impact on astronomers. As we noted already, Hoyle concludes that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology,"14 and Davies has moved from promoting atheism15 to conceding that "the laws [of physics]... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design."16 He further testifies:

[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all… It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming.17

Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe, expressed these thoughts:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?18

Tony Rothman, a theoretical physicist, in a popular-level article on the anthropic principle (the idea that the universe possesses narrowly defined characteristics that permit the possibility of a habitat for humans) concluded his essay with these words:

The medieval theologian who gazed at the night sky through the eyes of Aristotle and saw angels moving the spheres in harmony has become the modern cosmologist who gazes at the same sky through the eyes of Einstein and sees the hand of God not in angels but in the constants of nature.... When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.19

In a review article on the anthropic principle published in the journal Nature, cosmologists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees state in their summary: "Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences and these do warrant some explanation."20 Carr in a more recent article on the anthropic principle continues:

One would have to conclude either that the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidences or that the universe was indeed tailor-made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor!21

Physicist Freeman Dyson concluded his treatment of the anthropic principle with, "The problem here is to try to formulate some statement of the ultimate purpose of the universe. In other words, the problem is to read the mind of God."22 Vera Kistiakowsky, MIT physicist and past president of the Association of Women in Science, commented, "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."23 Arno Penzias, who shared the Nobel Prize for physics for the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, remarked:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan.24

Years before communism’s fall, Alexander Polyakov, a theoretician and fellow at Moscow’s Landau Institute, declared:

We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it. So there is a chance that the best of all possible mathematics will be created out of physicists’ attempts to describe nature.25

China’s famed astrophysicist Fang Li Zhi and his co-author, physicist Li Shu Xian, recently wrote, "A question that has always been considered a topic of metaphysics or theology the creation of the universe has now become an area of active research in physics."26

In the 1992 film about Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Hawking’s colleague, distinguished mathematician Roger Penrose, commented, "I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance."27 Hawking and Penrose’s colleague George Ellis made the following statement in a paper delivered at the Second Venice Conference on Cosmology and Philosophy:

Amazing fine-tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word "miraculous" without taking a stand as to the ontological status of that word.28

Cosmologist Edward Harrison makes this deduction:

Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.29

Allan Sandage, winner of the Crafoord prize in astronomy (equivalent to the Nobel prize), remarked, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."30 Robert Griffiths, who won the Heinemann prize in mathematical physics, observed, "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use."31 Perhaps astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-proclaimed agnostic,32 best described what has happened to his colleagues as they have measured the cosmos:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.33

In all my conversations with those who do research on the characteristics of the universe, and in all my readings of articles or books on the subject, not one person denies the conclusion that somehow the cosmos has been crafted to make it a fit habitat for life. Astronomers by nature tend to be independent and iconoclastic. If an opportunity for disagreement exists, they will seize it. But on the issue of the fine-tuning or careful crafting of the cosmos, the evidence is so compelling that I have yet to hear of any dissent.

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc14.html?main" target="_blank">From this link:</a>

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

Sakpo sez: luvluvluv, please type titles in for your links, don't just paste the address twice, as it messed up the formatting of the thread! Thanks!

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sakpo ]</p>

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 03:20 PM

Here is a review by Vic Stenger at Infidels.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/ross.html" target="_blank">here</a>

Like I said:

"Throughout this book, Ross subtly and unsubtly rewrites the facts to support his pre-ordained conclusions."

Vorkosigan

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

eh · 07-10-2002, 03:28 PM

Quoting Linuxpop

eh:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And he is proposing a supernatural being as a creator without evidence, and without neccesity simply because he wants to believe in a God. Fair enough. While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without evidence? Read the book. The Big Bang is one of the most convincing arguments for God. Unless you deny the logical principles of causality then the universe has a non-material, timeless, cause. This is what we call God. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation given the compelling evidence.

The big bang is convincing only if you look at space and time as infinite absolutes. There was never a time when the universe did not exists, effectively making it eternal. This is what cosmologists are saying. Do you at least agree with the statement that there was never a time when the universe did not exist?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is complete nonsense. The big bang is widely accepted among cosmologists. Yet, the majority of these scientists are non theists. Why do you suppose this is? The answer is that the big bang in no way implies a magical origin to the universe as Ross is proposing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're presenting an "ad populum" argument.

No, it has nothing to do with any popularity contests. I was adressing the claim that scientists reject the big bang because of the implications it carries. I was merely pointing out that they don't reject it all, proving the claim to be nonsense.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand. It's much easier to write books to audiences where most of your claims will go unchallenged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't seem to be challenging this claim.

But then, I'm no expert in quantum mechanics. Nor am I an expert in the area of evolution. But I can find holes in his claims about the BB.

[b]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really, did you find anything about this book that was convincing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't walk around the arguments... tell us *how* his claims are false, not just that they are.

You never gave any compelling evidence to support the idea that Ross is wrong, so why should I believe you?

I'm not the one going around making claims that the big bang proves God. Ross is. That's why I'm asking what exactly is so convincing about the argument. My two main objections to his claims about the BB are, the fact that a beginning does not imply a God if time itself is finite, and the fact that inflation reduces the role of any outside creator a bare minimum. I mean, what exactly does a God do in creation through inflation?

The fact is, I think the negative vibes by nontheists on infidels ought to diminish or go away completely. It's not foolish, nor is it without reason to believe in the existance of God.

It's certainly not illogical to believe in God, I agree. I would argue that there is hardly any evidence to make such a belief well grounded in rational thought. That seems to be the main difference between us. I would consider that to be hurling venom at theists, would you? Ross does seem to be a low caliber thinker, and is certainly not the best mind Christianity can produce. That may explain why he hasn't been received well on these forums.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

luvluv · 07-10-2002, 03:32 PM

Vork:

Quote:

Science isn't done by stopping whenever something isn't understood, and assuming that some extra-natural force is at work. Of course such proposals exist to "find a way around an extra-natural origin." Under methodological naturalism, your supposed to keep trying to find natural explanation for phenomena. That's what science is about: the refusal to bow to ignorance and call it god.

I can respect that. That's probably the right thing for scientists to do. But for people who aren't scientists, it is not irrational to draw conclusions based on the very strong evidence up to this point.

And it is possible that a deity did create the universe, in which case scientists will be confined to continually making increasingly absurd counter-proposals.

Quote:

The evidence for your deity is the same for any deity

Again, that's not quite true if you look at the holy books. A finite begining is especially damaging to Hinduism.

Quote:

The reason things appear Designed is that the are evolved by selection processes to fit within those constraints. FTers have the process backwards -- it is not the universe which is Fine Tuned, but the things in it. Selection has Fine Tuned them to fit the universe. Under your view, the objects in the universe existed in some form prior to universe -- where? how?

I think the point is that if the constants do not occur within the extremely fine-tuned parameters that we observe, selection has nothing but helium to work with. If any one of (by Ross's count) 26 parameters of the universe vary even slightly there is nothing around for selection at all.

Unless you are claiming that selection could have produced life regardless of the value of the constants?

eh

Quote:

Well I don't think a steady state universe proposes a planet earth that has existed for an infinite amount of time, so what's the point? A steady state just deals with the universe as a whole.

Well, I think the steady-state argument went that given an infinite universe it is not improbable for life to eventually exist somewhere. The process is a bit more daunting within a 14 billion year time frame. I think the steady-state guys were arguing that probablity favored the existence of life somewhere if the universe was infinite, so why not earth?

Quote:

How so? Have a look at the defintion for magic and compare it to the description of God creating the universe. What is the big difference?

Well, just because God may have created the universe through processes we don't understand does not mean that it is "magical". As has been said before any being that exhibits scientific appliances far in excess of his observers will appear to be working magic. (Your C.D. player looks like magic to a medeival man.) Ross says that the creation of the universe involved at least 10 space-time dimensions. It's obvious that a being operating on that many space time dimensions could do some things that would appear, to us, to be sheer magic (since beings cannot visualize phenomena that occur in more dimensions than they exist in). For example, Ross pointed out once on his television show that in extra dimensions it is possible to turn a basketball inside out without cutting it. Now, to you and I this sounds like an appeal to magic. Well, to a flatlander, the concept of depth would sound like an appeal to magic. God may not have any "magic" at all. He may just be a being who exists in more physical and time dimensions than we do. (Ross has a book about dimensionality and God, called Beyond the Cosmos, which I am interested in reading. It goes through possible extra-dimensional explanations of God's attributes such as omniscience, omnipresence, etc.)

Quote:

It's not irrational to assume a creator. But it is unneccessary, which is what Hawkings also says. Why can't he take quotes in their full context?

That's actually not what Hawkins says (at least in Ross's quote):

Quote:

In 1983 Stephen Hawking and James Hartle advanced the notion that since we cannot determine conditions in the universe before 10-43 seconds (or, 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) after its origin, perhaps some unknown phenomenon in that speck of time might have disturbed the governance of general relativity.5 If so, space, time, matter, and energy might not have originated from a true singularity (beginning from an infinitely small volume). They went on to propose that just as the behavior of a hydrogen atom can be described by a quantum mechanical wave function, so might the behavior of the universe. If that is the case, they claimed, the universe could have just popped into existence out of absolutely nothing at what most would call the beginning of time.

This fanciful hypothesis provides the basis for Hawking’s widely quoted statement, "The universe would not be created, not be destroyed; it would simply be. What place, then, for a Creator?"6 It is the basis, too, for New Agers’ and atheists’ claims that according to science a personal Creator-God need not be the agency for the origin of the universe. To Hawking’s credit, he later admitted in A Brief History of Time that the whole idea is "just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other principle."7

That is, Hawkings is saying that if the laws of quantum mechanics actually broke down at the begining of the universe then there is no need for a God. Hawkings goes on to say, as the quote above attests, his theory about the breakdown of quantume laws is "just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other principle"

Quote:

Only if you're thinking in terms of pre Einstein concepts of space and time.

I guess he's not, since Hawking's own work confirms that time was created at the BB. If time, energy, and matter are created at the BB, they must have had an external cause.

luvluv · 07-10-2002, 03:41 PM

Vork I actually mentioned at the begining of this thread that that particular reveiw is of the second edition, not the third edition. Some of his complaints (specifically for lack of biblical support) have been cleaned up in this version (which I believe has a 2001 copyright but as I don't have the book on me I could be wrong.)

eh

Quote:

No, it has nothing to do with any popularity contests. I was adressing the claim that scientists reject the big bang because of the implications it carries. I was merely pointing out that they don't reject it all, proving the claim to be nonsense.

I'd like to suggest you read the book. If the scenario as Ross presents it is accurate, there was indeed great resistance to the big bang even after it began to recieve a lot of astronomical confirmation. Natrualist astronomers knew full well the implications of this discovery and many of them (Hoyle the most drastic example) resisted it for a long time. Astronomers do accept it, which is why many astronommers, Ross claims, are deists. Again, I found this particular pronouncement rather bold:

Quote:

In all my conversations with those who do research on the characteristics of the universe, and in all my readings of articles or books on the subject, not one person denies the conclusion that somehow the cosmos has been crafted to make it a fit habitat for life. Astronomers by nature tend to be independent and iconoclastic. If an opportunity for disagreement exists, they will seize it. But on the issue of the fine-tuning or careful crafting of the cosmos, the evidence is so compelling that I have yet to hear of any dissent.

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 04:00 PM

I feel I must defend Ross a bit here: Ross is not arguing that the big bang alone accounts for strong evidence of a transcendant Creator, He argues that the big bang + the anthropic coincidences constitute evidence of design.

That's fine, Luv, but you can't get from "evidence of design" to Ross's Designer. There's no logical connection.

Vork, that was an interesting article. But still, it does seem that the "super" RNA theory is out the window, yes?

No doubt, but it is hardly the only way to look at the origin of life.

Also, you say that the transcendant creator is not evidence for the God of the Bible anymore than it is any other God. This is not quite true. Ross goes through several passages in the Bible that suggest that Yahweh resides outside of the universe, that the universe had a begining and is not eternal (that does in Hinduism), and that God exists outside of space-time. He says that the Bible is the most succesful holy book as far as the astronomical findings go.

That is Ross' opinion. Many physicists feel that some form of Eastern religion like Taoism seems to be closer to the truth. Ross might be able to twist up some passages, but there is no logical connection between Design and his god of the Bible. An impersonal force can do just as well. I mean, is Ross really all that familiar with Taoist theories chi? Can he quote the Vedas chapter and verse? How does he handle Muslim claims that the Koran has more science than the Bible?

Also, even if the Big Bang does not establish Yahweh or any other god, it still seems to me to undo naturalism. If the universe was created, or BEGUN, that seems to me to indicate that something other than this universe exists.

No, it seems to indicate that universe had a definite beginning. At this point we have no information about what existed prior to the universe, so the prudent thinker says "I don't know" when asked about that period.

Now let's look at what you cited:

The only extremeophiles I've heard of lived on the EDGE of volcanoes, not actually in the molten rock.

The issue is not that extremophiles were the first life, but that life is capable of surviving in some very tough conditions.

Obviously, sometime between 4 and 3.5 billion years ago, the earth began to cool. It's not like you need much cooled crust, Luv, to allow life to begin.

The evidence for design is merely coincidental. Our existence simply testifies that the extremely unlikely did, indeed, take place by chance. In other words, we would not be here to report on the characteristics of the universe unless chance produced these highly unlikely properties.

Rebuttal: This argument is fundamentally an appeal to infinite chances, which already has been answered (see chapter 12). Another response has been developed by philosopher Richard Swinburne34 and summarized by another philosopher, William Lane Craig:

Suppose a hundred sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad, and the prisoner survives. The prisoner should not be surprised that he does not observe that he is dead. After all, if he were dead, he could not observe his death. Nonetheless, he should be surprised that he observes that he is alive.35

This is a highly fallacious argument, and confirms my view that Swinburne is either an idiot or malicious. Probably the latter. The fallacy here is immediate and obvious: the execution victim is well-aware of the odds of surviving a hundred sharpshooters at close range. However, nobody knows the odds of life appearing in a universe. We have only 1 universe, and no conclusions about probability can be drawn from it. Is earth life the only possible form? Again, nobody knows.

Of course, too, Ross ignores the problem of determining that life is the reason the universe was created for. That's an assumption he cannot prove.

I do think it would be possible for a universe that works by selection and natural laws to not look fine-tuned in a scenario where life is not so fragile.

Luv, life is not fragile. Lots of things are more fragile than life. Was the universe created for them? Why is "fragility" the standard you picked?

I think the argument also comes from the degree of tuning on so many differentvariables. Of course we wouldn't be here unless we found those values, but that does not explain why those values are the way that they are. (Unless you are making a teleological argument).

I do not know why the constraints are the way they are, and senseless speculation won't help us. Instead, I await the verdict of physics, although I don't expect it soon. But I will tell you this: someday, physics will explain that too, and then where will you be? Like I told you before, putting your faith in gaps is dangerous, science has a way of closing them. Your fallacy is to assume that the values have some need of special explanation.

Though there was a bouncing universe theory recently proposed, (Ross goes through this proposal in a radio show on his website reasons.org) all of the proposals that had been in existence at the time of the book had been more or less debunked.

I am aware that's what Ross thinks....

Well, of course you are right. Given the universe as a created, planned event, it is impossible to draw up a theory to why it has to be that way (just as you could not describe a theory, through purely physical laws, to describe why a piece of sculpture I created had to be the way it is). The notion of design is a theory.

Design is not a theory. It is untestable, it provides no framework of explanation, it offers no research programs, it solves no pressing problem, it does not unite disparate data into a coherent testable model, it does not suggest applications in the real world, and it is not naturalistic in the form you propose. It is just an assertion unsupported by evidence.

Also, there is no evidence that the universe is a planned, created event. For all you know, the universe is accidental fallout from some other process, or the entity that designed it did so erroneously, and wanted some other universe, but got this one.

But on the issue of the fine-tuning or careful crafting of the cosmos, the evidence is so compelling that I have yet to hear of any dissent.

Here's one for you to ponder, Luv -- when physicists talk about the supernatural origin of the universe, and do not speak from a scientific point of view, they are pure layman, just like you and me. When some Nobel Prize winner says that the value for such-and-such a constraint is X, I'll listen in rapt fascination. When he says he's found proof of god, I'll laugh at him.

Since many physicists do not believe the BB is proof of god, I'll leave it to you to figure out whether Ross is ignorant or lying.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 04:14 PM

And it is possible that a deity did create the universe, in which case scientists will be confined to continually making increasingly absurd counter-proposals.

Then we are lucky that there is no deity, and the universe got here by means entirely naturalistic.

Again, that's not quite true if you look at the holy books. A finite begining is especially damaging to Hinduism.

What are you talking about? Lots of Hindus believe that the BB supports their theory! Lots don't, either. Haven't you learned yet that whatever science comes up with, religion will appropriate it and say "We knew that all the time?" Back when the BB hadn't been confirmed, and was competing with the steady-state, many religious people leaned toward the steady-state theory. Now that it has been disproved, suddenly the BB provides proof of god. The real truth is this: no matter what science discovers, there will be religious people who will always think it provides "proof of god."

I think the point is that if the constants do not occur within the extremely fine-tuned parameters that we observe, selection has nothing but helium to work with. If any one of (by Ross's count) 26 parameters of the universe vary even slightly there is nothing around for selection at all.

And then we wouldn't be here. So? Are you claiming we are the reason the universe was created? Why?

Unless you are claiming that selection could have produced life regardless of the value of the constants?

....I don't know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. What is life, anyway? Why is it the reason the universe was created? Give something to use "life" as the reason. But you always evade that question, Luv. Your preference for "life" is entirely arbitrary. Please demonstrate that the universe was not created to get the beautiful lightning bolts in the clouds of Jupiter.

Vorkosigan

07-10-2002, 02:48 PM	#22
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Explain this scenario in depth, and we'll see if it's one of the explanations that Ross talks about. <shrug> The point is not which one is right -- there is no way to know -- but that Ross' interpretation is highly slanted: "He states that there was never any impetus behind the hypothesis for the bouncing universe, oscilating universe, steady state universe, quantum tunneling (as on origin of the universe), etc except to find a way around an extra-natural origin of the universe." Science isn't done by stopping whenever something isn't understood, and assuming that some extra-natural force is at work. Of course such proposals exist to "find a way around an extra-natural origin." Under methodological naturalism, your supposed to keep trying to find natural explanation for phenomena. That's what science is about: the refusal to bow to ignorance and call it god. There's also the reason to believe in God based on evidence and reasoning. That's how myself and some of my friends came to a belief in God... Believe it or not, many have come to belief in God not by "indoctrination from birth", but by evidence. If there was no evidence for the existance of God, I can guarantee you that I'd be agreeing with you 100%. The evidence for your deity is the same for any deity; if you had been raised in Saudi, you'd be a Muslim. There is no evidence for gods. And the BB, as we saw, is certainly not evidence for yours. Converting to religion is a psychosocial event that has little to do with argumentation. But if you want to put up the "evidence" that has convinced you, I'll be happy to show you where you're wrong. I assume that you'll deconvert if I do that? Didn't think so. If you're referring to biological special selection (if not, I apologize), then this does not explain the fine-tuning of non biological phenomen which are necessary for the existance of intelligent life. I am not referring to biological selection alone. The universe as a whole runs on selection processes operating under constraint. Regardless of the nature of the constraints, so long as selection is lawful, any universe would look designed to an observer. The reason things appear Designed is that the are evolved by selection processes to fit within those constraints. FTers have the process backwards -- it is not the universe which is Fine Tuned, but the things in it. Selection has Fine Tuned them to fit the universe. Under your view, the objects in the universe existed in some form prior to universe -- where? how? In any case your claim about biological selection and Fine Tuning doesn't work. First, you don't know whether we are the only possible intelligent life. Obviously, given the 20 or so species in the Hominini, we are not -- assuming of course that we are what the Designer calls "intelligent." The Designer may well believe that ants are intelligent and humans not. Second, you don't know that intelligent life is the reason the universe was erected. For all you know the Designer was interested in ball lightning or snowflakes or the aurora borealis, which, after all, exist in a much narrower range of conditions than life.... All we can say is that we are here, and we operate within known natural laws. We are certainly not designed, and I for one reject the kind of clockwork determinism that your hypothesis calls for. Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2002, 02:52 PM	#23
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Reply to luvluv, eh: Can you link me to some information about inflation? I would recommend <a href="http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm</a> for starters. I'll see if I can dig up some more links. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the origins of life, this too sounds a little far stretched. 15 billion years seems to be a long amount of time for life to evolve, and I don't ever recall reading about any scientists opposing the BB for this reason. Maybe in creationist la-la land, but not here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, 4.5 billion. As I noted above, due to geological conditions on earth, Ross actually cuts this to 40 million. I was wondering if anyone could respond to that portion of the book? Well I don't think a steady state universe proposes a planet earth that has existed for an infinite amount of time, so what's the point? A steady state just deals with the universe as a whole. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Strawman. How so? Have a look at the defintion for magic and compare it to the description of God creating the universe. What is the big difference? But at any rate, Ross was combining the Big Bang with the anthropic coincidences and combined they do make a rather potent appeal. They make appeal to those wanting answers when we only have limited knowledge. How do we know an infinite amount of worlds are possible? Do we have a complete understanding of the very fabric of spacetime itself to make this claim? Not yet, so the anthropic claims are not that convincing for me. I think what the BB certainly does is make naturalism untennable. If the universe did have a begining, Ross quotes Hawkings himself as saying that it wouldn't be irrational to assume that it had a beginner. It's not irrational to assume a creator. But it is unneccessary, which is what Hawkings also says. Why can't he take quotes in their full context? At any rate, if the universe has a begining, then there is something beyond the universe. That would be the undoing of naturalism. Only if you're thinking in terms of pre Einstein concepts of space and time. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The great majority of the book is Hugh Ross citing from peer reviewed scientific articles That's not the point.

07-10-2002, 03:20 PM	#25
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Here is a review by Vic Stenger at Infidels. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/ross.html" target="_blank">here</a> Like I said: "Throughout this book, Ross subtly and unsubtly rewrites the facts to support his pre-ordained conclusions." Vorkosigan [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

07-10-2002, 03:28 PM	#26
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Quoting Linuxpop eh: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And he is proposing a supernatural being as a creator without evidence, and without neccesity simply because he wants to believe in a God. Fair enough. While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Without evidence? Read the book. The Big Bang is one of the most convincing arguments for God. Unless you deny the logical principles of causality then the universe has a non-material, timeless, cause. This is what we call God. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation given the compelling evidence. The big bang is convincing only if you look at space and time as infinite absolutes. There was never a time when the universe did not exists, effectively making it eternal. This is what cosmologists are saying. Do you at least agree with the statement that there was never a time when the universe did not exist? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is complete nonsense. The big bang is widely accepted among cosmologists. Yet, the majority of these scientists are non theists. Why do you suppose this is? The answer is that the big bang in no way implies a magical origin to the universe as Ross is proposing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're presenting an "ad populum" argument. No, it has nothing to do with any popularity contests. I was adressing the claim that scientists reject the big bang because of the implications it carries. I was merely pointing out that they don't reject it all, proving the claim to be nonsense. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand. It's much easier to write books to audiences where most of your claims will go unchallenged. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You don't seem to be challenging this claim. But then, I'm no expert in quantum mechanics. Nor am I an expert in the area of evolution. But I can find holes in his claims about the BB. [b] quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really, did you find anything about this book that was convincing? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't walk around the arguments... tell us how his claims are false, not just that they are. You never gave any compelling evidence to support the idea that Ross is wrong, so why should I believe you? I'm not the one going around making claims that the big bang proves God. Ross is. That's why I'm asking what exactly is so convincing about the argument. My two main objections to his claims about the BB are, the fact that a beginning does not imply a God if time itself is finite, and the fact that inflation reduces the role of any outside creator a bare minimum. I mean, what exactly does a God do in creation through inflation? The fact is, I think the negative vibes by nontheists on infidels ought to diminish or go away completely. It's not foolish, nor is it without reason to believe in the existance of God. It's certainly not illogical to believe in God, I agree. I would argue that there is hardly any evidence to make such a belief well grounded in rational thought. That seems to be the main difference between us. I would consider that to be hurling venom at theists, would you? Ross does seem to be a low caliber thinker, and is certainly not the best mind Christianity can produce. That may explain why he hasn't been received well on these forums. [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

07-10-2002, 04:00 PM	#29
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I feel I must defend Ross a bit here: Ross is not arguing that the big bang alone accounts for strong evidence of a transcendant Creator, He argues that the big bang + the anthropic coincidences constitute evidence of design. That's fine, Luv, but you can't get from "evidence of design" to Ross's Designer. There's no logical connection. Vork, that was an interesting article. But still, it does seem that the "super" RNA theory is out the window, yes? No doubt, but it is hardly the only way to look at the origin of life. Also, you say that the transcendant creator is not evidence for the God of the Bible anymore than it is any other God. This is not quite true. Ross goes through several passages in the Bible that suggest that Yahweh resides outside of the universe, that the universe had a begining and is not eternal (that does in Hinduism), and that God exists outside of space-time. He says that the Bible is the most succesful holy book as far as the astronomical findings go. That is Ross' opinion. Many physicists feel that some form of Eastern religion like Taoism seems to be closer to the truth. Ross might be able to twist up some passages, but there is no logical connection between Design and his god of the Bible. An impersonal force can do just as well. I mean, is Ross really all that familiar with Taoist theories chi? Can he quote the Vedas chapter and verse? How does he handle Muslim claims that the Koran has more science than the Bible? Also, even if the Big Bang does not establish Yahweh or any other god, it still seems to me to undo naturalism. If the universe was created, or BEGUN, that seems to me to indicate that something other than this universe exists. No, it seems to indicate that universe had a definite beginning. At this point we have no information about what existed prior to the universe, so the prudent thinker says "I don't know" when asked about that period. Now let's look at what you cited: The only extremeophiles I've heard of lived on the EDGE of volcanoes, not actually in the molten rock. The issue is not that extremophiles were the first life, but that life is capable of surviving in some very tough conditions. Obviously, sometime between 4 and 3.5 billion years ago, the earth began to cool. It's not like you need much cooled crust, Luv, to allow life to begin. The evidence for design is merely coincidental. Our existence simply testifies that the extremely unlikely did, indeed, take place by chance. In other words, we would not be here to report on the characteristics of the universe unless chance produced these highly unlikely properties. Rebuttal: This argument is fundamentally an appeal to infinite chances, which already has been answered (see chapter 12). Another response has been developed by philosopher Richard Swinburne34 and summarized by another philosopher, William Lane Craig: Suppose a hundred sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad, and the prisoner survives. The prisoner should not be surprised that he does not observe that he is dead. After all, if he were dead, he could not observe his death. Nonetheless, he should be surprised that he observes that he is alive.35 This is a highly fallacious argument, and confirms my view that Swinburne is either an idiot or malicious. Probably the latter. The fallacy here is immediate and obvious: the execution victim is well-aware of the odds of surviving a hundred sharpshooters at close range. However, nobody knows the odds of life appearing in a universe. We have only 1 universe, and no conclusions about probability can be drawn from it. Is earth life the only possible form? Again, nobody knows. Of course, too, Ross ignores the problem of determining that life is the reason the universe was created for. That's an assumption he cannot prove. I do think it would be possible for a universe that works by selection and natural laws to not look fine-tuned in a scenario where life is not so fragile. Luv, life is not fragile. Lots of things are more fragile than life. Was the universe created for them? Why is "fragility" the standard you picked? I think the argument also comes from the degree of tuning on so many differentvariables. Of course we wouldn't be here unless we found those values, but that does not explain why those values are the way that they are. (Unless you are making a teleological argument). I do not know why the constraints are the way they are, and senseless speculation won't help us. Instead, I await the verdict of physics, although I don't expect it soon. But I will tell you this: someday, physics will explain that too, and then where will you be? Like I told you before, putting your faith in gaps is dangerous, science has a way of closing them. Your fallacy is to assume that the values have some need of special explanation. Though there was a bouncing universe theory recently proposed, (Ross goes through this proposal in a radio show on his website reasons.org) all of the proposals that had been in existence at the time of the book had been more or less debunked. I am aware that's what Ross thinks.... Well, of course you are right. Given the universe as a created, planned event, it is impossible to draw up a theory to why it has to be that way (just as you could not describe a theory, through purely physical laws, to describe why a piece of sculpture I created had to be the way it is). The notion of design is a theory. Design is not a theory. It is untestable, it provides no framework of explanation, it offers no research programs, it solves no pressing problem, it does not unite disparate data into a coherent testable model, it does not suggest applications in the real world, and it is not naturalistic in the form you propose. It is just an assertion unsupported by evidence. Also, there is no evidence that the universe is a planned, created event. For all you know, the universe is accidental fallout from some other process, or the entity that designed it did so erroneously, and wanted some other universe, but got this one. But on the issue of the fine-tuning or careful crafting of the cosmos, the evidence is so compelling that I have yet to hear of any dissent. Here's one for you to ponder, Luv -- when physicists talk about the supernatural origin of the universe, and do not speak from a scientific point of view, they are pure layman, just like you and me. When some Nobel Prize winner says that the value for such-and-such a constraint is X, I'll listen in rapt fascination. When he says he's found proof of god, I'll laugh at him. Since many physicists do not believe the BB is proof of god, I'll leave it to you to figure out whether Ross is ignorant or lying. Vorkosigan

07-10-2002, 04:14 PM	#30
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	And it is possible that a deity did create the universe, in which case scientists will be confined to continually making increasingly absurd counter-proposals. Then we are lucky that there is no deity, and the universe got here by means entirely naturalistic. Again, that's not quite true if you look at the holy books. A finite begining is especially damaging to Hinduism. What are you talking about? Lots of Hindus believe that the BB supports their theory! Lots don't, either. Haven't you learned yet that whatever science comes up with, religion will appropriate it and say "We knew that all the time?" Back when the BB hadn't been confirmed, and was competing with the steady-state, many religious people leaned toward the steady-state theory. Now that it has been disproved, suddenly the BB provides proof of god. The real truth is this: no matter what science discovers, there will be religious people who will always think it provides "proof of god." I think the point is that if the constants do not occur within the extremely fine-tuned parameters that we observe, selection has nothing but helium to work with. If any one of (by Ross's count) 26 parameters of the universe vary even slightly there is nothing around for selection at all. And then we wouldn't be here. So? Are you claiming we are the reason the universe was created? Why? Unless you are claiming that selection could have produced life regardless of the value of the constants? ....I don't know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. What is life, anyway? Why is it the reason the universe was created? Give something to use "life" as the reason. But you always evade that question, Luv. Your preference for "life" is entirely arbitrary. Please demonstrate that the universe was not created to get the beautiful lightning bolts in the clouds of Jupiter. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.