Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 35 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
28 Mar 2016, 11:36 am
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
29 Mar 2016, 3:56 am
drlaugh wrote:
Stories of floods may be one example. It does not necessarily mean Noah's is not valid.
I think about 7,000 years ago geologists have determined that there was a large scale flood of some sort as there are fossils of now extinct freshwater fish accumulated.
Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 35 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
29 Mar 2016, 6:38 am
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Joined: 6 Feb 2005 Age: 45 Gender: Male Posts: 24,578 Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
29 Mar 2016, 9:37 am
Multiverse vs. one fine-tuned universe seems like a standoff that'll be in place for years. A bright enough physicist might find something that helps shift the odds toward one or another but even there - a multiverse is about as much disproof of a universal deity as fine-tuning is proof of one. I'm sure no matter which way the evidence shifts the goal-posts will too.
I'd still maintain that the only satisfactory way of gathering data on this stuff is to research the western mystery traditions, find the right magical path that works for you among those that have been touted for both their grind and results, and apply as much discipline to that attempt as if it were post-graduate work. It's the mystical experiences that give people the impression that there is a deity, the supposed authoritative books on the topic were written by people who were said to have had such experiences, and the regimens that help get a person there are widely available. IMHO we need more 21st century minds set to the task of actually exploring this territory and getting the data rather than spending all that time trying to figure out ways to parse words from societies that were under very different living conditions than our own and who would have filtered such information accordingly.
_________________ The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
Joined: 28 Dec 2014 Age: 75 Gender: Male Posts: 913
29 Mar 2016, 9:55 am
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
a multiverse is about as much disproof of a universal deity as fine-tuning is proof of one. I'm sure no matter which way the evidence shifts the goal-posts will too.
You simply don't seem to understand. The reason the multiverse hypothesis is given is as a possible answer to your objections concerning fine tuning. We aren't using it to disprove anything. We don't need to disprove anything. You, as a believer in religion, have the heavy lifting to do. You are making extraordinary claims about what we see as a magic fairy man in the sky. This magic man was dreamed up by people barely out of the stone age. When you make extraordinary claims, you must provide extraordinary proof...
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
29 Mar 2016, 10:35 am
pcuser wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
a multiverse is about as much disproof of a universal deity as fine-tuning is proof of one. I'm sure no matter which way the evidence shifts the goal-posts will too.
You simply don't seem to understand. The reason the multiverse hypothesis is given is as a possible answer to your objections concerning fine tuning. We aren't using it to disprove anything. We don't need to disprove anything. You, as a believer in religion, have the heavy lifting to do. You are making extraordinary claims about what we see as a magic fairy man in the sky. This magic man was dreamed up by people barely out of the stone age. When you make extraordinary claims, you must provide extraordinary proof...
The issue with the multiverse as it stands now, is that it relies upon a whole new package of laws in physics that would cause it to occur. In fact a mechanism to generate universes, would ironically, require even more stringent fine tuning due to many bizarre conjectures and solutions that string theory holds. Eternal inflation has been shown to diverge into a single point making it utterly improbable that it would produce any bubbles that could survive in the stochastic model. Inflation, unlike dark energy, is not in anyways perpetual.
_________________ Sebastian
"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck
Last edited by Deltaville on 29 Mar 2016, 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
29 Mar 2016, 10:40 am
pcuser wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
a multiverse is about as much disproof of a universal deity as fine-tuning is proof of one. I'm sure no matter which way the evidence shifts the goal-posts will too.
You simply don't seem to understand. The reason the multiverse hypothesis is given is as a possible answer to your objections concerning fine tuning. We aren't using it to disprove anything. We don't need to disprove anything. You, as a believer in religion, have the heavy lifting to do. You are making extraordinary claims about what we see as a magic fairy man in the sky. This magic man was dreamed up by people barely out of the stone age. When you make extraordinary claims, you must provide extraordinary proof...
Joined: 28 Dec 2014 Age: 75 Gender: Male Posts: 913
29 Mar 2016, 10:45 am
Deltaville wrote:
pcuser wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
a multiverse is about as much disproof of a universal deity as fine-tuning is proof of one. I'm sure no matter which way the evidence shifts the goal-posts will too.
You simply don't seem to understand. The reason the multiverse hypothesis is given is as a possible answer to your objections concerning fine tuning. We aren't using it to disprove anything. We don't need to disprove anything. You, as a believer in religion, have the heavy lifting to do. You are making extraordinary claims about what we see as a magic fairy man in the sky. This magic man was dreamed up by people barely out of the stone age. When you make extraordinary claims, you must provide extraordinary proof...
The issue with the multiverse as it stands now, is that it relies upon a whole new package of laws in physics that would cause it to occur. In fact a mechanism to generate universes, would ironically, require even more stringent fine tuning! Eternal inflation has been shown to diverge into a single point making it utterly improbable that it would produce any bubbles that could survive in the stochastic model. Inflation, unlike dark energy, is not in anyways perpetual.
Again, it doesn't matter if the idea of a multiverse is true. The proof of a deity is incumbent on people making the claim that a deity exists.
Joined: 28 Dec 2014 Age: 75 Gender: Male Posts: 913
29 Mar 2016, 10:47 am
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'd be fascinated to know the point in this thread at which I became a Christian and a proponent of fine-tuning.
If you're talking about me, I didn't say you were a Christian. I said why you're comment was irrelevant to the question of whether there is a God or Gods...
Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 35 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
29 Mar 2016, 10:48 am
I do not believe in anything analogous to a magic fairy man. Is this what your concept of God is? If so... I do not believe in your God either. And you should realize that 'proof' is not something one attains in any field except for "systems" of logic and mathematics. And even in those cases... there will be more true statements about that system that can be 'proven' within that system. (See Godel's Incompleteness theorem.) Furthermore, the engine that drove science was a culture that valued rational thought and mind as implicitly central to reality. God is the Logos. Science was born out of the Enlightenment, which was precipitated by the revival of of the study of Greek philosophy by Christian theologians in the Renaissance. Mind was made primary. Descartes was visited by an angel in a dream. The angel told him the conquest of nature was to be achieved by the application of reason on number and measure. Science was born out of man (and woman)'s expectation of law (order) in nature because we believed in a law giver. And finally, your claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a philosophical statement... not a statement of science.
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Last edited by NoahYates on 29 Mar 2016, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: 6 Feb 2005 Age: 45 Gender: Male Posts: 24,578 Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
29 Mar 2016, 10:58 am
pcuser wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'd be fascinated to know the point in this thread at which I became a Christian and a proponent of fine-tuning.
If you're talking about me, I didn't say you were a Christian. I said why you're comment was irrelevant to the question of whether there is a God or Gods...
My comments weren't about whether or not a God exists. I was addressing the nature of the debate itself and the problems with trying to debate cosmological constants and multiverses or lack of them - that these hold no stable value in such a debate.
What you said actually, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, speaks to my point because from what you're saying a Judao-Christian or Islamic concept of God would be just as extraordinary and need just as extraordinary evidence to be proven even if some research at CERN weighed in favor of there just being one universe. Similarly if there is a multiverse there's no reason for theistic apologia not to embrace that too.
_________________ The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
29 Mar 2016, 11:05 am
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
pcuser wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'd be fascinated to know the point in this thread at which I became a Christian and a proponent of fine-tuning.
If you're talking about me, I didn't say you were a Christian. I said why you're comment was irrelevant to the question of whether there is a God or Gods...
My comments weren't about whether or not a God exists. I was addressing the nature of the debate itself and the problems with trying to debate cosmological constants and multiverses or lack of them - that these hold no stable value in such a debate.
What you said actually, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, speaks to my point because from what you're saying a Judao-Christian or Islamic concept of God would be just as extraordinary and need just as extraordinary evidence to be proven even if some research at CERN weighed in favor of there just being one universe. Similarly if there is a multiverse there's no reason for theistic apologia not to embrace that too.
Both Steven Weinberg and Bernard Carr have made it clear that "if you do not want God, you better have a multiverse!"
Joined: 28 Dec 2014 Age: 75 Gender: Male Posts: 913
29 Mar 2016, 11:15 am
NoahYates wrote:
I do not believe in anything analogous to a magic fairy man. Is this what your concept of God is? If so... I do not believe in your God either. And you should realize that 'proof' is not something one attains in any field except for "systems" of logic and mathematics. And even in those cases... there will be more true statements about that system that can be 'proven' within that system. (See Godel's Incompleteness theorem.) Furthermore, the engine that drove science was a culture that valued rational thought and mind as implicitly central to reality. God is the Logos. Science was born out of the Enlightenment, which was precipitated by the revival of of the study of Greek philosophy by Christian theologians in the Renaissance. Mind was made primary. Descartes was visited by an angel in a dream. The angel told him the conquest of nature was to be achieved by the application of reason on number and measure. Science was born out of man (and woman)'s expectation of law (order) in nature because we believed in a law giver. And finally, your claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a philosophical statement... not a statement of science.
After two attempts to post a longish post have been unsuccessful because of glitches in the posting software, I'll simply say I have no religion, even though you wish to claim I do for several reasons. Also, your portrayal of Godel's theorem is wrong. I have a degree in math and know this is true. The proof is probably beyond you as it's beyond most of us. Going forward, I'll only respond to real evidence...
Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 35 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
29 Mar 2016, 11:20 am
I would love to hear your long post.
Also... I realize that is just one way of boiling the "implication" of his theorem down into a slogan... obviously that is not a "demonstration" of his theorem. I do not claim to understand the entire proof, but I have studied it extensively. I love to muse on the philosophical implications of his theorems... as did Godel himself.
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Last edited by NoahYates on 29 Mar 2016, 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
28 Mar 2016, 11:36 am
