Syntho-sis Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 , in the case of extreme coincidence, I don't generally read unbelievable odds as supporting evidence for an intelligent design, in case that's where you were going on that. As to the universe being a flat infinite plane, I can't personally reconcile how a finite amount of energy could result in an infinite plane - so that is an interesting question for sure. Maybe someone in the astrophysics/cosmology department could shed light on that one. I agree with unbelievable odds not being conclusive evidence- on any topic. ^Intelligent design is still a possible explanation, is it not? An infinite amount of energy would be required to make an infinite plane...but only a finite amount of energy would be required for a finite- but constantly expanding universe? Any cosmologists about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I agree with unbelievable odds not being conclusive evidence- on any topic. ^Intelligent design is still a possible explanation, is it not? Possible yes. I would wonder as to the likelihood, and whether it is higher than other possibilities. It is also possible that the universe was created by an intelligent designer who was making something else, and we are just a byproduct of that other creation (the mold on the wall of God's shower, the stone chips from one of his sculptures, etc). Or even some "godly 3 stooges" sketch gone awry in which we were accidentally created. Or it could be an extension of what we already observe: that simple laws interacting in a consistent and unchanging manner over time create extremely complex patterns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 The whole "fine tuning" argument really lacks credibility, too. We're so "fine tuned" that 99% of all species ever alive have gone extinct. We're so "fine tuned" that humanity will come to an end in the relatively near future... completely dead and extinct ourselves. We're so "fine tuned" that our Sun is going to extinguish and everything in our solar system will die with it. We're so "fine tuned" that Andromeda galaxy is heading on a direct collision course for us as I type this. If that's your version of "fine tuning," then I'd be wary to hear your version of "rough tuning." As for ID being a possible explanation, it really brings nothing useful whatsoever to the table. It doesn't describe the process. It doesn't allow us to predict the outcome of future processes. It is not in any way testable, measurable, or useful, and it is nothing more than conjecture. Our understanding of the world is completely the same either with or without it. That's the rub with that one. It's not an explanation, it's a hollow place holder waiting for the explanation, and further suffers from the problems of an infinite regress (who designed the designer... and who designed that... and who designed that... turtles all the way down). Since it's neither useful, compelling, nor even internally consistent, I fail to see why we'd bother including it in our views, but that's just me. line[/hr] Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' ~Douglas Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 To make a credible argument based on fine-tuning of our universe, you need to know how many other universes there are, or how our universe was created. It could be that we are here because out of all the universes, ours was one of the ones fine tuned for life. It could be that some of the fine tuning is actually a requirement for our universe to have been created in the first place. Since we (almost by definition) can't observe other universes, and we don't have a good theory for the creation of universes, commenting on the likeliness of a universe like ours existing is premature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 Or it could be an extension of what we already observe: that simple laws interacting in a consistent and unchanging manner over time create extremely complex patterns. Interesting...I always assumed laws needed some sort of lawgiver. ha silly me Do you know of any laws that have came about on their own? Laws that just so happen to affect an entire universe... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe whole "fine tuning" argument really lacks credibility, too. We're so "fine tuned" that 99% of all species ever alive have gone extinct. We're so "fine tuned" that humanity will come to an end in the relatively near future... completely dead and extinct ourselves. We're so "fine tuned" that our Sun is going to extinguish and everything in our solar system will die with it. We're so "fine tuned" that Andromeda galaxy is heading on a direct collision course for us as I type this. Probably the most nihilistic thing I've read all day...and entirely true What is your point? I don't have time to worry about nature's "defects." Or the fact that we live in such a hostile universe. I'm too busy marveling at the infinite complexity and organization that exists. If that sounds idiotic well then I guess I'm an idiot. Let me ask you this. If there was valid evidence for an ID, would you be willing to accept it? ^ purely hypothetical Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged we (almost by definition) can't observe other universes, and we don't have a good theory for the creation of universes, commenting on the likeliness of a universe like ours existing is premature. Wouldn't that cancel itself out? I thought science was the study of observable phenomena? Ha- supernatural studies for example. They are not a valid science for the simple fact that there is no evidence for such ideas, and no way of observing such supposed phenomena. Can't observe alternate universes= does not exist Can't observe purple elephants= does not exist Can't observe God= does not exist I forgot the point I was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) What is your point? That the whole "fine tuning" argument completely lacks credibility, as the tuning really isn't that fine. Let me ask you this. If there was valid evidence for an ID, would you be willing to accept it? Absolutely, but I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, can you define what such evidence would entail so I'll know it when I see it? What specific prediction is available to us with this "intelligent designer" concept that can be shown correct or falsified? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI thought science was the study of observable phenomena? This is a bit of a false representation of science, since we study things all of the time which we cannot see... For example, electrons and quarks and ancient climate and all manner of things. It's visibility to the human eye is not a criterion for it being science. Can't observe alternate universes= does not exist Can't observe purple elephants= does not exist Can't observe God= does not exist I forgot the point I was trying to make. It wouldn't matter due to the problematic logic being used in that point. The conclusion "does not exist" does not logically follow from the assertion "cannot observe." The inability to observe something does not necessitate its nonexistence. It simply means that we cannot observe it, and nothing more. For that reason, such assertions generally should not be used to support arguments, claims, or hypotheses either... Especially claims about the universe, its various components, and how we all came to be. It's unuseful, unfounded, and offers no benefit except perhaps the appeasement of a lazy and insecure mind. I'm just saying, a mind which is genuinely curious would likely search harder for a more solid answer, an answer which is repeatable and consistent. Hence, we practice science, where testable predictions are made, experiments conducted, and false conclusions and empty assertions are discarded. Edited April 10, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 Absolutely, but I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, can you define what such evidence would entail so I'll know it when I see it? What specific prediction is available to us with this "intelligent designer" concept that can be shown correct or falsified? Obviously a being with a great imagination, and an intelligence far greater than ours. I seriously doubt all of this happened by accident. Most of you will disagree with me. That is totally fine. I can understand where you are coming from--lack of evidence. But until I find something worth replacing(that can be proved) the ID, I will believe whatever helps me sleep and night.... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis is a bit of a false representation of science, since we study things all of the time which we cannot see... For example, electrons and quarks and ancient climate and all manner of things. It's visibility to the human eye is not a criterion for it being science. You assumed I meant all things observable to the naked eye. I was referring to the scientific definition of observe- "Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any datum collected during this activity." Go back and read my post. How was my explanation a false representation of science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I seriously doubt all of this happened by accident. <...> But until I find something worth replacing(that can be proved) the ID, I will believe whatever helps me sleep and night.... I completely understand, and you're certainly not alone with that. However, it's really not that scary. It's just different from what you previously thought. If you're willing to, you might explore the videos I posted at the link below. They're relatively short, but really informative and I personally enjoyed them very much. If you choose not to, no worries. I just want to be sure you at least have the option to educate yourself on these topics and make reality more accessible. The truth is no reason to lose sleep. It's just reason to dream about new things. Enjoy the videos. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=483305#post483305 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted April 11, 2009 Author Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) It wouldn't matter due to the problematic logic being used in that point. The conclusion "does not exist" does not logically follow from the assertion "cannot observe." The inability to observe something does not necessitate its nonexistence. It simply means that we cannot observe it, and nothing more. For that reason, such assertions generally should not be used to support arguments, claims, or hypotheses either... Especially claims about the universe, its various components, and how we all came to be. It's unuseful, unfounded, and offers no benefit except perhaps the appeasement of a lazy and insecure mind. I'm just saying, a mind which is genuinely curious would likely search harder for a more solid answer, an answer which is repeatable and consistent. Hence, we practice science, where testable predictions are made, experiments conducted, and false conclusions and empty assertions are discarded. I was using an example my friend. Of course it would be somewhat "illogical" to say that the existence of alternate universes is highly unlikely. But it would be "ok" to assume the same for purple elephants and God. Even though all three examples are equally probable (lack of evidence.) I have noticed quite a bit of that.... Why is that? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged you're willing to, you might explore the videos I posted at the link below. They're relatively short, but really informative and I personally enjoyed them very much. If you choose not to, no worries. I just want to be sure you at least have the option to educate yourself on these topics and make reality more accessible. The truth is no reason to lose sleep. It's just reason to dream about new things. Enjoy the videos. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=483305#post483305 I will most definitely watch the videos, thank you very much. Edited April 11, 2009 by Syntho-sis Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Can the gods conceive infinity? Only if they can draw fractals by hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted April 11, 2009 Author Share Posted April 11, 2009 Maybe the universe has always existed (infinite regress) If something exists on an infinite time-scale anything that can happen, has already happened... aleph-null Your existence has already occurred so therefore you do not exist at this present moment... Unless what you are stating is that the universe recycles itself an infinite amount of times. ^Could be...Keeps going back to infinite regress no matter what factor you use...turtles upon turtles. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCan the gods conceive infinity? Only if they can draw fractals by hand. Or measure the coastline of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Interesting...I always assumed laws needed some sort of lawgiver. ha silly me Do you know of any laws that have came about on their own? Laws that just so happen to affect an entire universe... Common misconception. And of course I don't know of laws that came about on their own, they suffer the same issues as matter and energy in the "first cause/infinite regression" paradoxes. If you look back regarding what I wrote on energy/matter regarding the creation of the universe, the same applies for the laws. It is interesting though, that when we look at complex things such as the Earth or even a self-replicating cell, we see complexity that we can't imagine existing without some complex answer, but then we find that the exact same basic forces explain how those are probable to form, without any intervention. From everything we observe, for there to be a "creator" the concept has gone from someone creating even just the Earth over several days with pauses, consideration, and refined intent direction to at most a "perfect first action" that resulted in everything happening as a result of those first conditions set up during the big bang. Probably the most nihilistic thing I've read all day...and entirely true What is your point? I don't have time to worry about nature's "defects." Or the fact that we live in such a hostile universe. I'm too busy marveling at the infinite complexity and organization that exists. If that sounds idiotic well then I guess I'm an idiot. Let me ask you this. If there was valid evidence for an ID, would you be willing to accept it? I would posit that it is actually impossible to "prove" God or ID - any being capable of creating the universe would be capable of such incredible feats, that any being just less than that which didn't create the universe would be indistinguishable from the capabilities of a creator to our minds. Ha- supernatural studies for example. They are not a valid science for the simple fact that there is no evidence for such ideas, and no way of observing such supposed phenomena. Can't observe alternate universes= does not exist Can't observe purple elephants= does not exist Can't observe God= does not exist I forgot the point I was trying to make. Do not equate "no evidence for" with "does not exist" - that is the mistake here. Science simply has nothing to say about the things for which there is no evidence for - it does not make a claim one way or another. Keep in mind there is a big difference between a personal belief, and shared communal information. We share information to further our society as a whole, to exchange ideas, to consider new thoughts. For information to be accepted in a social community, it has to meet some standards, because there is a lot of inaccurate information out there in the world. You can't just accept every piece of information that comes your way. Scientific information has very rigorous standards as a result, and that has helped us tremendously as a society become more technologically advanced. Social subgroups with more casual requirements often evaluate information on the basis of whether or not it agrees with their preconceived notions - one reason politics can be so heated and diverse. This forum leans far more towards the scientific requirements, though mostly in regards to claims and assertions - opinions that are clearly expressed as such are exempt, but may be seen as somewhat moot, as opinions are a dime a dozen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Astronaut Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 ...it wasn't an issue of the wrong word. The request was to step through the arguments logically, not intuit what feels most fitting. I just intended to highlight the way everyday people use terms incorrectly without realizing. People do it all the time. "It's only logical that it's just government screwing us again", "it's only logical that she'll call you back," "it's only logical the home team's gonna win" My point is that a newcomer and we might not be on the same page about certain terms, which should be taken into consideration if we ask for a reply tailored to our expectations for verifiable statements -- an uncommon expectation which a newcomer might be unaware of, from habits formed in the everyday world. It's possible they don't know the meaning of falsifiable, or think by evidence you mean some video/news item with compelling "logic", or verifiable means it's repeated throughout the internet. At the forums heading: We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers... With that kind of invite, beginners and the scientifically curious will be stopping by -- i.e. people raised mostly on entertainment's version of science, and the cultural use of language with vague/imprecise/casual meanings. It wasn't directed at you, I just happened to put my reply to you in the same post as my general two cents. Over the past week I saw a few threads where people seemed confused and maybe feel like they're getting reamed, and it's not until later they realize the level of precision needed for statements made on these boards -- after someone mentions it and realization hits. All I'm saying is maybe we can give new people the benefit of doubt, and clearly show them what's expected and a link to helpful tips so we're all on the same page when talking and/or making statements. It'll keep people around longer, which increases the number of people knowledgeable about real science, and who might otherwise have lost interest or went elsewhere. Second, even with the "fixed" wording it's still a claim that is subject to challenge. Personally, I do not find a deity solution more intuitive. I suspect people who believe in deities do, and those that find deities very odd ideas indeed would not. Fair enough. I did only mean how Syntho-sis could've been trying to say "it's only intuitive," but if so, might not have considered to instead say "it's only logical". Enjoy the videos. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=483305#post483305 In the second vid, from 2:35 to 2:45, it makes a leap from non-living and chance interactions to gaining the ability to make other copies of itself. What I'd like is for each step of the process within that leap to be shown. Exactly how did it go from being at the right place/time to being able to make copies? It's still unsolved (if they have no answer). Great vid though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 In the second vid, from 2:35 to 2:45, it makes a leap from non-living and chance interactions to gaining the ability to make other copies of itself. What I'd like is for each step of the process within that leap to be shown. Exactly how did it go from being at the right place/time to being able to make copies? It's still unsolved (if they have no answer). Excellent observation, and I quite agree. That's an area of some pretty exciting research right now, and we learn more everyday about the particulars. While it's not a stand-alone resource for learning about the topic, I like that video because it makes the process much more accessible to people who haven't direcly studied it for themselves, and it certainly gets the gist correct. On top of that, I like it because its explanation is supported by facts and evidence, and is so much more satisfying than the deity conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Interesting...I always assumed laws needed some sort of lawgiver. ha silly me Do you know of any laws that have came about on their own? Laws that just so happen to affect an entire universe... Not really. Even in total anarchy, you will find some order. Humans are social creatures, so we behave as a group even when there are no spoken laws. Ants also behave in an orderly fashion, following certain rules -- but no one gave them those rules. But the laws of the universe are not like societies' laws. You can't choose not to follow them. The laws of logic are also like that, only they also couldn't be any other way. Let me ask you this. If there was valid evidence for an ID, would you be willing to accept it? And if there were an absence of evidence for an ID, or even evidence against an ID, would you be willing to accept it? Let me ask you a specific question: Why would an ID insert retrovirus genes throughout mammalian DNA in a way as to suggest common descent? Since we (almost by definition) can't observe other universes, and we don't have a good theory for the creation of universes, commenting on the likeliness of a universe like ours existing is premature. Wouldn't that cancel itself out? I thought science was the study of observable phenomena? Ha- supernatural studies for example. They are not a valid science for the simple fact that there is no evidence for such ideas, and no way of observing such supposed phenomena. Can't observe alternate universes= does not exist Can't observe purple elephants= does not exist Can't observe God= does not exist I forgot the point I was trying to make. We can't observe the absence of other universes either, so we can't just assume that they don't exist. You don't see a duck and conclude that that must be the only duck to ever exist. We can say there is at least one universe, but we can't say that there is only one. We cannot say the same of purple elephants or gods, as we haven't observed that there is at least one. (I think that the proper scientist is an agnostic, who will wait for evidence one way or the other before deciding. Keep in mind that when talking about a specific God we can observe His absence; for example whether there was a global flood or whether our genetic variability could have arisen in a few thousand years from a pair of people.) For all we know, there could be 101000000 universes out there with ours the only one suitable for life. You could ask why so few universes are fine tuned for life. For all we know, the process that created our universe required that our universe be suitable for life, and it couldn't have been any other way. Eg iNow's example of a puddle being contained in a shape which would be highly unlikely to have the same shape as the water, yet that is how all puddles are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted April 12, 2009 Author Share Posted April 12, 2009 I haven't adequate time to respond to all of your posts at the moment, but bear with me I shall be back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Astronaut Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Fair enough. I did only mean how Syntho-sis could've been trying to say "it's only intuitive," but if so, might not have considered to say that instead of "it's only logical". There, fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted April 12, 2009 Author Share Posted April 12, 2009 It's funny this was originally meant to be a mathematical topic... But instead it sort of became an ID vs. Evolution debate. I suppose that is mostly my fault. The question "Can God conceive infinity?" Is meant to be metaphorical. This topic (at least in my mind) has more to do with the open questions of cosmology involving infinity. It seems to me that we are just beating a dead horse. I'm not sure of what it is the discussion is about at this point. Also, I enjoyed the videos. It helped point out my innumerable fallacies and understand how to better hold a scientific debate. Also raised some interesting questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It's funny this was originally meant to be a mathematical topic... Then it was a mistake to mention something that is by definition outside science/mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 (edited) This thread contains the religion-topic posts from "Infinity... Can God conceive it?" [thread]39832[/thread]. The original thread was dealing with mathematical issues and used god as a metaphorical question. The posts in this thread are deviating from ScienceForum's policy regarding religious arguments, and were split from the original thread. There is a reason ScienceForums has gotten rid of its previously active religion/philosophy subforum. Please avoid turning back to these subjects. Thread closed. Edited April 12, 2009 by mooeypoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts