I'm well aware of the science. But, Hansel is arguing philosophy as much as physics, and once the door is open to metaphysics, all natural proofs are rendered irrelevant. I've tried to argue pure science in this thread before. The fact is that Steven Weinberg calculated the cosmological constant based upon his anthropic argument. That is, he recognized that quantum energy theory would have the vacuum energy as wildly greater than that which would permit galaxies, stars and planets to form, he recognized that there wasn't enough identified dark matter and energy to cancel out the quantum forces. So, he simply said, what does this number have to be in order for life to exist: 10^-120 (actually he was off by a magnitude of 10, but that's close enough for jazz). So, at the moment, we have a measured CC that permits life, and no complete explanation for the forces that permit the number to be as small as it is. Classical physicists propose that there are other forces at work that we have yet identify, measure and add to the Grand Unified Theory. String theorists propose that constants aren't constant. Either way, the CC, by itself, is not a proof of a creator. It's just a measurement of vacuum energy that "is what it is."
Indeed, time has a beginning and an end. And everything that it produces will pass away. Time is the antithesis of eternity. It was an attempt to replace eternity with another type of kingdom. The mind that makes this world is outside of time/space. But it is not God. Really, you have to wonder about the beginning of anything that starts with a violent explosion. Do you really think that God creates this way? Explosion is symbolic, representing what was going on in the mind of the maker of this world, its feelings, it's beliefs. Clearly, the mind was not at peace. Jesus
I'm not sure that we're talking apples and apples here. I am probably completely missing your point, but the cosmological constant usually comes up in discussions about the end, i.e. will the universe forever expand, collapse, etc, whereas the age of the universe has been calculated by completely different techniques. Yes, I agree the CC does not prove anything. I also agree that they still don't know what's out there yet completely. They're still getting 2+2=5 on a few of their equations and so you read different theories as to the solution. But, again, the age of the earth at slightly over 4 billion is a solid number and the age of the universe is pretty solid as well because it really doesn't depend on how much dark matter/energy that there is. But consider what you're asking Hansel to accept carte blanche: if the Big Bang, ensuing universe, ensuing solar systemand ensuing advanced life forms in just a few billion years was an accident, what a bizarre accident! Seriously, it would be like pouring the periodic table in a liquid plasma out the window of an F-16 and watch it congeal before your eyes into a Cray. I'm just telling you how that's how I look at the atheistic argument and maybe that's what Hansel is getting at: I don't know exactly where he's coming from. You have self-organization building incredibly complex systems in just a few billion years. So - and I'm just being honest here - I really find it hard to believe that somone could argue that it is foolish to think that this is anything other than just an "accident", esp. when you consider all the supernatural activity on planet earth. Of course, I understand that the athiestic argument is that it all occurred (debatably imo) by natural means. There is no need of a God in any of it they would say. But, again, it's so incredibly mysterious: how can you just pour something out of a window and watch it slowly self-organize into such awesome complexity by pure accident and chance? It's a good question I think. You at least have to admit it's bizarre!
I couldn't disagree more. I think a screaming F16 is beautiful. Same thing with a fireworks display, Niagara and a Top Fuel Dragster. I also admire incredibly the technology that is behind the F16 and the Dragster. And Niagara: stay out of its way. You're assuming heaven is all harps and Pinehurst and I'm not so sure about that one based on what I've seen...
Hi shoe Why bizarre ? What is it that would be so conspicuously unconventional about the Universe to make it bizarre? I mean, how do you judge such an 'accident' to be bizarre in the first place, when there is nothing comparable to suggest it is so. What accepted rules or standards is the Universe not conforming to, which would make it bizarre. Aren't you simply making an appeal to incredulity in order to suggest bizarre? And as far as an 'accident' goes, surely the observable Universe happening by chance without an apparent cause, is not as bizarre as its manufacture by an invisible Supernatural Giant Sky Daddy which Itself happened by chance without an apparent cause , .. is it?
Shoe: >I really find it hard to believe that someone could argue >that it is foolish to think that this is anything other than >just an "accident", esp. when you consider all the >supernatural activity on planet earth. LOL -- a perfect example of how you tend to believe one thing and resist believing another ... in spite of the evidence staring you in the face. The "supernatural" you believe, in spite of your (and all others) complete lack of ability to prove it in any kind of reasonable test. You resist belief that someone could hold a contrary position, ("especially when you consider" your proof of the "supernatural" -- the very proof they find laughable.) even though there are millions of them who will stand to your face and argue just that. You'll believe something you can't prove and resist belief in the very thing you can. Shoe, sometimes you take some very entertaining positions. JB
I'm glad you're enjoying yourself! Actually, O ye of little faith , if you would have some trust in humanity, we could get somewhere. Seriously, is it me or is it you that refuses the evidence? Now I gave the Reagan/Carter example that noone responded to. Do you really think both these very educated, very bright men were both "just seeing things". Don't you think it's just a wee bit odd that two men, either leading or soon-to-be-leading, the most powerful nation on earth both see a UFO dramatically changing their lives? Now, why am I wrong because I believe they probably saw something spiritual in nature and you are so obviously correct that they didn't??
Good writing btw - nice wording. What you wrote above is the key. "Nothing comparable" is a beautiful phrase to describe the universe. Think about it: 1. Explosion at t=0 2. Universe organizes itself from simple hydrogen and helium to heavy metals and coalescing into planets, stars, etc. 3. On planet earth life, in a VERY short time frame, organizes itself into unimaginably complex subsystems. 4. Man pops out of all of this with a brain that makes any IT subsystem on planet earth quite embarassing. Now if this is so easy, then I want you to get yourself a team of top level scientists and build yourself a cherry bomb with a bag filled with one elements and, shortly after lighting the fuse and watching the explosion, come and show me the supercomputer that pops out. When you do this, I'll believe it was all just an accident, okay? If it's so easy, then just do it and make me a believer...
Go to a Vegas casino, walk into the blackjack pit. Observe that the games are played with 1 to 6 decks. Every time one of those decks or shoes is shuffled, the order that results is so impossible that the probability that any of those orders will reoccur during some future shuffle is practically nil. And, yet, this impossible act is occurring 24 X 7, 365 days a year, at every open blackjack table in every casino on Earth where blackjack, or any other card game is played. Now, if you were to count all of those card games, you'ld probably come up with a few hundred thousand taking place at any one time, on the planet. But, given a world with sloshing seas, rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, puddles, etc., and knowing that the chemicals that are constituents of those water vessels actually have a natural affinity for attraction and binding, and further knowing that there are probably trillions of interactions going on every moment of every day on this planet and on other planets throughout the universe, is it really that bizarre that "something" weird might happen just one time. Because it really does have to happen just once in the history of the universe in order to get things started. The new replicating molecule wouldn't have any competition for resources, because it would be utterly alone. It also wouldn't be doing a hell of a lot more than replicating with errors, and it's just possible that its error rate was hugely greater than that of modern organisms, so evolution would have been a lot faster. And, of course, the organism and its successors didn't have any skeletal system to fossilize for eons, so whatever was going on would not be easily discovered in the future. As for the rest of the story, well, science tells it pretty well. It's not a perfect novel and it's got some pretty big holes, but it fits the empirical data better than does an intelligent entity who slips in and out of our universe undetected. But, even if the latter story is true, there is simply no means of distinguishing an actual "Act of God" (i.e., a true directed act of divine intervention) from a legal "Act of God" (i.e., an occurrence which is attributable to chance and for which no individual may be held liable -- and, the reason why there are insurance companies). So, to what end does the ID advocate work? Instead of looking for actual evidence of third-party intervention in the processes of life, the IDer operates on the following circular syllogism: 1. Because the designer exists. 2. Things look designed to one of the designer's creations. 3. Therefore the designer exists. While evolution operates on this syllogism: 1. Because the universe is composed of attractive and repulsive forces. 2. Turbulence is created causing various organisms to be created and destroyed. 3. Therefore evolution of an imperfect replicator is possible. Is there evidence to support the ID construct? Sure, there loads of evidence to support #2 -- but nothing to support #1. While for the evolutionary construct, there is evidence for both #1 and #2. So, objectively, if I have to choose which story is more plausible, I chose the latter, because there is evidence to support both premises. There is no getting around the fact that in order to make ID a "science," the IDer must produce proof of the designer's existence independent of its designs. Until that happens, ID is not a science. It could be true, but it's unprovable.
Shoe: >Actually, O ye of little faith , if you would have >some trust in humanity, we could get somewhere. Humanity tells the truth, humanity lies. Humanity see's things that are, humanity see's things that aren't. The above is a fact proven beyond reasonable debate. There must be a methodology which separates truth from fiction and is from isn't. One can't just rely on what "humanity" says or one will believe in most anything. >Seriously, is it me or is it you that refuses the evidence? I simply have a higher standard for "evidence" than you. No more than that. >Now I gave the Reagan/Carter example that no >one responded to. Do you really think both these >very educated, very bright men were both "just >seeing things". I've seen nothing suggesting that "very educated, very bright men" can't see things for which there are simple, natural explanations. >Don't you think it's just a wee bit odd that two >men, either leading or soon-to-be-leading, the >most powerful nation on earth both see a UFO >dramatically changing their lives? I think it's MORE than a wee bit odd that you would place a higher value on two guys who were just like you and I except that through lies and deceit (especially Reagan) they maintained political careers. Seriously, why is a politician automatically qualified to "see" things better? Just another example of your warped sense of evidence. >Now, why am I wrong because I believe they >probably saw something spiritual in nature and >you are so obviously correct that they didn't?? A: I doubt I've used the word "obvious" in this exchange -- I tend not to throw that word around. If either side were obvious, only people with delusions and illness would not believe that way. B: I tend to believe there are natural explanations for such incidents because countless times there HAVE BEEN natural explanations for such incidents -- incidents just as compelling. After a while, if you care about the quality of the evidence, you learn not to give carte blanche to what people "see". You require a collection of evidence that all points in the same direction. Currently, supernatural evidence tends to point to culture -- that is we tend to see what our culture has taught us to see. JB