Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 As far as evidence of intelligence behind the potential, if the potential of the fundamental forces differed by a margin of one quintillionth, we wouldn't be here. That's 1 with 18 zeros. I'll put faith on those odds any day. So you are invoking the Teleological argument in your defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 As far as evidence of intelligence behind the potential, if the potential of the fundamental forces differed by a margin of one quintillionth, we wouldn't be here. That's 1 with 18 zeros. I'll put faith on those odds any day. Citation please? Where are you getting these figures for "the potential of the fundamental forces"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Citation please? Where are you getting these figures for "the potential of the fundamental forces"? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#CosFinTun Have a look for yourself So you are invoking the Teleological argument in your defense?correct, based on cosmic fine tuning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 correct, based on cosmic fine tuning Do you see that the idea that a creating intelligence is required due to perceived fine tuning only begs the question of what fine tuned the fine tuner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Personally, I look for how much evidence is available to support any explanation. I trust that methodology not to lead me to hasty conclusions. If you had evidence that evolution adds to a species without ever taking anything away, you could change my mind about how evolution really works. But you'd have to have a bigger mountain of evidence than I have that says otherwise. I was referring to the evolution of your mind. The evolution of energy is from simple to complex and back again, and again..............Oscillation is an essential part of the dynamic universe, just like the harmonic beating of your heart or the harmonic pulse of the sun. Energy resonates. Do you see that the idea that a creating intelligence is required due to perceived fine tuning only begs the question of what fine tuned the fine tuner? Yes, I do. That's where infinity comes into play. That's also why I kneel humbly before the source. Beyond that is where God exists for me. Looking further would most likely burn your eyes out or drive you to insanity but I invite it. So now will all join us at this frontier? Our discussion has fostered an infinite conclusion. For me there is only one solution that allows me to sleep at night, God. Edited September 9, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Looking further would most likely burn your eyes out or drive you to insanity but I invite it. So now will all join us at this frontier? Our discussion has fostered an infinite conclusion. Ideas built upon strong reproduceable evidence is what I find meaningful. I've always believed that what makes an idea strong and worthwhile isn't how impossible it is to test but how much scrutiny it has withstood. Therefore, I find little use for deism, pantheism or any other flavor of personal definition of god. They are nothing more than a small subset of the nearly infinite number of untestable, inscrutable concepts based purely on assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Ideas built upon strong reproduceable evidence is what I find meaningful. I've always believed that what makes an idea strong and worthwhile isn't how impossible it is to test but how much scrutiny it has withstood. Therefore, I find little use for deism, pantheism or any other flavor of personal definition of god. They are nothing more than a small subset of the nearly infinite number of untestable, inscrutable concepts based purely on assumption. You are backtracking. Have we not just revealed the evidence for an intelligent source? The only assumption is what now lies beyond that, if anything. Edited September 9, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 photon propeller, Read a portion of your link. I would have to say I fall in the weak Anthropic category, figuring that things are the way they are, because being this way allows them to be the way they are. If they were different, then things would not be this way. As for something with explanitory power, how about considering that this universe is not one among many, but one with a large, if not infinite number of predecessors. The theory has probably been floated before, but I imagine the possibility of the entire universe one day unifying to a singularity and then happening again, with some artifacts of the last universe, carried on into the next. That is, that intelligence may have begun many universes ago, and built up in steps, and the intelligentness of the last one was somehow coded into this one, as a gift or memorial from/of the last. With this "theory" one can imagine life and intelligence spreading throughout the galaxy, meeting up with other evolved life, and establishing a greater consciousness that, after billions of years, with the singularity approaching, would find a way to leave some breadcrumbs behind, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the "next" iteration of the universe. It requires no god, per se, just a previous consciousness, prior the big bang, that left some constants for us to utilize and love. A once alive, but now dead consciousness, that is just remembered and "felt" by the consciousness that is present on Earth today, and the possible consciousnesses that may exist on other "life giving" planets, and such. Bear in mind that life does not have to be carbon based, and like us. Witness the sulfur tube life at the vents at the bottom of the sea. It does not have to be, and probably is not, a humanlike consciousness, that left its code and clues in the singularity that burst into our current universe. But I would imagine it is a "common" consciousness, that would provide the "source" you speak of. That is, that in the same way that we are all decendents of Lucy, we are all, every planet, star, quark, bird and bee, decendents of the big bang. There is no other source from which to sprout. Regards, TAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) photon propeller, Read a portion of your link. I would have to say I fall in the weak Anthropic category, figuring that things are the way they are, because being this way allows them to be the way they are. If they were different, then things would not be this way. As for something with explanitory power, how about considering that this universe is not one among many, but one with a large, if not infinite number of predecessors. The theory has probably been floated before, but I imagine the possibility of the entire universe one day unifying to a singularity and then happening again, with some artifacts of the last universe, carried on into the next. That is, that intelligence may have begun many universes ago, and built up in steps, and the intelligentness of the last one was somehow coded into this one, as a gift or memorial from/of the last. With this "theory" one can imagine life and intelligence spreading throughout the galaxy, meeting up with other evolved life, and establishing a greater consciousness that, after billions of years, with the singularity approaching, would find a way to leave some breadcrumbs behind, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the "next" iteration of the universe. It requires no god, per se, just a previous consciousness, prior the big bang, that left some constants for us to utilize and love. A once alive, but now dead consciousness, that is just remembered and "felt" by the consciousness that is present on Earth today, and the possible consciousnesses that may exist on other "life giving" planets, and such. Bear in mind that life does not have to be carbon based, and like us. Witness the sulfur tube life at the vents at the bottom of the sea. It does not have to be, and probably is not, a humanlike consciousness, that left its code and clues in the singularity that burst into our current universe. But I would imagine it is a "common" consciousness, that would provide the "source" you speak of. That is, that in the same way that we are all decendents of Lucy, we are all, every planet, star, quark, bird and bee, decendents of the big bang. There is no other source from which to sprout. Regards, TAR I have often speculated and would agree with you that the universe will also undergo an expansion and contraction period. A universal oscillation so to speak just as the energy it is comprised of does. What I disagree with you on is the fact that it does not require an architect. No matter how many times it recycles itself the controlling factors, the potential, which govern that cycle must precede it. If you have a dice with only ones on every side no matter how many times you roll it you will always get a one. The multitude of numbers must preexist in the potential of the dice itself. An architect must design the archetype. I would also agree with the "common conscious" from the stand point that we are all manifestations of the universe connected and comprised of energy. However I believe what makes life special is the individual part, the power to choose, to affect change. Otherwise the universe would be nothing more than probability. Imagine if we are all vessels of God, and/or of the universe, knowledge will allow us all to close our eyes and sit in the throne of our kingdom. If I were God, I wouldn't listen to the same single song all the time, I would divide myself, and revel in the symphony of all the melodies of my potential. Edited September 10, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 You are backtracking. Have we not just revealed the evidence for an intelligent source? The only assumption is what now lies beyond that, if anything. No, perceived fine tuning is not evidence. The teleological argument is not real evidence even if apologist like to make that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 photon propeller, As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, if you need an architech to design the place, then the question arises as to who is God's mother, and father, or where did God come from? If you are going to propose an infinite God, you might as well just propose an infinite cosmos instead. That is, if you require no starting point. The difference between the two views is only in imagining you know the guy personally, and nobody else does. What I mean by that, and in line with this thread topic, is that considering an anthropomorphic God as a requirement for the universe to be, logically associates yourself, with this God. Since there is no evidence, per se, for this particular consciousness, that is aware of you, and you of it, (to the exclusion of everybody else) then claiming this God to be the source is unfair and untrue to everybody else that does not believe such a personality exists. So in your take, you are right about this personality and anyone that does not see your correctness is in error. Such is the take also of those that follow Muhammed's Allah. If you are not a believer, you are in error. This is contrary the "same source" principle, as it is not possible, under the predecessor universe theory I propose instead, for anybody or anything to not already be associated with and included in the source's outcomes. Religious prejudice is a double edge sword that cuts both the believer and the non believer. The believer is wrong, because he can not be right about his/her personal exclusive relationship with the source. And the non-believer is wrong, because he/she has no other source to spring from, but the actual one. Isis is trying to establish a Caliphate in Syria and Iraq and cut off women's clitori and make people pray 5 times a day to a non existent personality. Any source that I align myself with, does not require such behavior. Which imaginary source is more workable, explains more, allows everybody the same footing, and allows for the least prejudging. 1. An architect. 2. Big Bang (with an undetermined precondition) Regards, TAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 If you are going to propose an infinite God, you might as well just propose an infinite cosmos instead. That is, if you require no starting point. The difference between the two views is only in imagining you know the guy personally, and nobody else does. Exactly, why add the massive assumption of the infinite intelligent source. Carl Sagan had a pretty eloquent explanation of this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Skeptic134, I have "Cosmos" on a bookshelf about 6 feet away. Have not opened it in quite a while, but perhaps that is where I got the idea. Regards, TAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Exactly, why add the massive assumption of the infinite intelligent source. Carl Sagan had a pretty eloquent explanation of this point. The goal is to strive to understand the universe, by the acquisition of knowledge, through scientific means, and eventually the source, all the while keeping faith in the source itself. For me fine tuning is not an assumption of evidence, it is concrete evidence with a margin of error less than one grain of sand in all the sands of the world. A margin which would free or condemn in any court. Truth is self evident. It is not prejudice. I also believe that the universe, and or God, includes all of reality, inner connected, everyone, whether they know it or not. It is awareness that we should strive to attain, and knowledge and truth are a common flag we may all fly under. It is fear which holds us back, and those hoarders of knowledge who capitalize on it instead of sharing it in order to maintain power. Some labor to acquire it, for others ignorance is bliss. If the universe does recycle itself, possible and likely probable, under the same governing factors, the only variables that affect change are the choices made by the living. Now I have shared with you a glimpse of how precious and significant my life, yours, and everyone else truly is. Can we now live in peace and aspire to achieve this goal? Edited September 11, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) The goal is to strive to understand the universe, by the acquisition of knowledge, through scientific means, and eventually the source, all the while keeping faith in the source itself. For me fine tuning is not an assumption of evidence, it is concrete evidence with a margin of error less than one grain of sand in all the sands of the world. Truth is self evident. Striving to understand the universe by acquiring knowledge through scientific means is a great goal but I don’t understand the last part “while keeping faith in the source”. That doesn’t mean anything to me and actual is a little counter to the first part of the goal. If you are striving to acquire knowledge empirically then you shouldn’t also be keeping faith in something that is merely an assumption. You say that for you fine tuning is great evidence, but how? Evidence, specifically scientific evidence, is empirical, repeatable, observable and it shouldn’t matter who is looking at the evidence it should look the same. How does a personal subjective feel that the universe is fine tuned meet any of those criteria? Knowledge and understanding of reality isn’t gained by making assumptions instead of following the evidence. Skeptic134, I have "Cosmos" on a bookshelf about 6 feet away. Have not opened it in quite a while, but perhaps that is where I got the idea. Regards, TAR I've never seen the original Cosmos, I need too find it. I hear it was very good (better than the recent one). Edited September 11, 2014 by Skeptic134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 We live in a universe of cause and effect. The degree to which our universe is fine tuned is empirical and repeatable, who or what caused that degree of exactness is the only subjective question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) We live in a universe of cause and effect. The degree to which our universe is fine tuned is empirical and repeatable, who or what caused that degree of exactness is the only subjective question. Describe an experiment to test the hypothesis that an intelligent creator is the ultimate source of existence. What is a prediction you can make based solely on the assumption that an intelligent creator is the source of existence? Edited September 11, 2014 by Skeptic134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Carl believed that knowledge should be shared and was criticized by many of his colleagues for doing so. No doubt some of which were consumed by greed. At least the new cosmos attempts to honor his legacy. Sometimes standing for what you believe means standing alone. Describe an experiment to test the hypothesis that an intelligent creator is the ultimate source of existence. What is a prediction you can make based solely on the assumption that an intelligent creator is the source of existence? I said the source, the cause, who or what, is the only subjective part, the engineering tolerance level of our universe is empirical and repeatable, proven fact, it is not subjective, for me it is concrete evidence of an intelligent source. Edited September 11, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I said the source, the cause, who or what, is the only subjective part, the tolerance level of our universe is empirical and repeatable, proven fact, it is not subjective, for me it is concrete evidence of an intelligent source. Ok so you are saying the intelligent source is the subjective part but then you turn around and say you have concrete evidence of an intelligent source... How is an intelligent source both subjective but there is concrete evidence of the intelligent source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Ok so you are saying the intelligent source is the subjective part but then you turn around and say you have concrete evidence of an intelligent source... How is an intelligent source both subjective but there is concrete evidence of the intelligent source? It is the difference in saying something so precise had a cause or did not. Knowing the laws of nature are ruled by cause and effect, cause seems the obvious conclusion. If so, the cause must encapsulate the potential, precise, intelligent, and exquisite. Edited September 11, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic134 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 It is the difference in saying something so precise had a cause or did not. Knowing the laws of nature are ruled by cause and effect, cause seems the obvious conclusion. If so, the cause must encapsulate the potential, precise, intelligent, and exquisite. Now you are invoking the Cosmological argument. None of the classical logical arguments for a creator are evidence; they don’t meet the criteria of what defines evidence, specifically empirical evidence. Just like with the Teleological argument, the Cosmological argument just begs the question of what was the cause of the previous cause. Because you want to draw the line after you’ve posited one creator doesn’t make it sound to be content and stop following the logical progression into oblivion. It is an assumptive non-answer. A first cause argument isn’t evidence of an intelligent creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) I have already agreed that the logical progression is into infinity, the cosmological argument is simply evidence of cause alone, the teleological argument is evidence which describes that cause as precise. It is the combination of the two which are evidence of an intelligent source, cause and precision engineering. I have drawn no lines and made no assumptions. Nor have I speculated on the cause of the cause except that for me the aphorism "God" allows me to cope with that perpetual mystery. I concede that the origin of a source of infinite nature may be impossible to define completely, describing it as intelligent however is not. When we finally have our TOE, if we live long enough to figure it out, it may give us more insight into the nature of the infinite source. The point is if we don't learn to cooperate and live in peace with a common goal we have no chance of ever figuring it out. Edited September 11, 2014 by photon propeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 We live in a universe of cause and effect. The degree to which our universe is fine tuned is empirical and repeatable, who or what caused that degree of exactness is the only subjective question. What do you mean when you say the degree to which our universe is 'fine tuned' is empirical? I understand that, say, gravity is measured to be consistent, but what is the 'fine tuned' part? That sounds like you are saying we can measure that someone tuned, or adjusted, the universe from one state to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 What do you mean when you say the degree to which our universe is 'fine tuned' is empirical? I understand that, say, gravity is measured to be consistent, but what is the 'fine tuned' part? That sounds like you are saying we can measure that someone tuned, or adjusted, the universe from one state to another. Refer to the link in post 28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Refer to the link in post 28 Thanks, but I don't see where there is any 'fine tuning' involved. All we are measuring is the way the universe is. We are not measuring any sort of tuning. I don't see where this particular configuration of the universe (what you are calling a tuned universe) is any more significant than any other possible configuration of the universe. If gravity was stronger or weaker, or if there was no strong nuclear force, (or whatever) the universe would be just as fine tuned and empirical and repeatable as it is now. It is just that the universe would be fine tuned for something else. In fact, the same could be said for EVERY possible configuration of the universe. So it seems to me as if you are saying that THIS configuration of the universe proves a god simply because we happen to be in it. If not, then it seems as if you are saying ANY configuration of the universe proves a god, because that configuration is fine tuned also. Either way, it seems as if the existence of us, or the existence of a universe, is proof enough for you that god exists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now