Desperately Fleeing God in Cosmology

CEH ^ | November 17, 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

“Our universe is perfectly tailored for life"..."Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation:"...

[MrB]

It must have just been one of his radio speeches or something - I can find no reference to any specific work that this was written in.

Mere Christianity was written from transcripts of his radio broadcasts, so it is likely that it was edited out for length considerations.

[mlo]

What is the origin of those "rules of chemistry?"

The rules of chemistry follow from the characteristics of atoms. The post you are replying to was about the origin of life and a common misunderstanding about that. Not the origin of the universe. That's a different question. Let's stick to this one for now.

The point was that creationists intentionally misrepresent the scientific view of the origin of life as some kind of freak, imensely improbable, chance collision of atoms to form the first complete organism. This is not what anyone thinks.

Even to refute an opposing view, it is important to understand what that view is. To intentionally misrepresent it to make refuting it easier is simply dishonest.

Let's take the snowflake analogy further. This is only an analogy, I'm not saying snowflakes are really capable of life. Let's say that out of the millions of possible crystal shapes a snowflake might take, a very few are capable of reproduction. The odds that any given snowflake happens to form into one of those special shapes are miniscule. But the odds that one of those shapes will from somewhere during a blizzard are not miniscule. It's not even improbable. It's a near certainty.

The same is true for the first self-replicating molecules. In the right environment with the right resources, it is not improbable that self-replicating molecules would form. It is a near certainty.

[mlo]

You better be able to because faith is all we have.

Then you concede the point.

...Atheism by definition cannot stand "faith" it requires a rational proof...

Rational proof of what? Of whatever you choose to believe in? Yes. That's called "reason", not "atheism".

You can have all the faith in the world that you know the answer. You can still be wrong. The question isn't what you believe. The question is how do we know. Those are two different things. Faith may provide belief, but it doesn't provide knowledge.

There is no "objective answer" for faith in God.

That wasn't the question. You brought up faith. The question was about an objective answer for the origin of the universe. I'm pointing out that "God did it" is not a better answer, it only adds one more link in the chain.

[mlo]

You are quoting a creationist that happens to be an oceanographer. He is fundamentally wrong on several points in this short quote. His opinion isn’t worth much.

[Sudetenland]

"Desperately Fleeing God in Cosmology" is the title of the article.

Cosmology-the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and esp. with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom.

I'd say that the topic quite specifically concerns the origin question. Nice attempt to rephrase the question to one more convenient for you. You want to talk about dishonesty.

You believe that self-replicating molecules could spontaneously come into being, because you choose to do so. There is no supporting evidence that such an occurrence could take place without the intervention of some intelligence. There is no evidence of genuine speciation occurring without human interference. The only speciation events cited in literature have been as a result of the redefinition of what a species is.

Your entire premise is base on faith that certain physical conditions occurred (temperature, pressure) in the presence of a correct stochiametric mixture of the necessary chemical compounds which then received the necessary amount of energy influx to cause them to form. Statistically the probabilities of all of these requirements occurring at precisely the correct time are infinitesimal.

Your "reasoning" is based as much on faith as mine, you just don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

[Sudetenland]

"You can have all the faith in the world that you know the answer. You can still be wrong. The question isn't what you believe. The question is how do we know.

Yes but you don't "know" anything, you believe much. Therefore faith is all you have.

[Louis Foxwell]

How’s that for mind bending?

Excellent. The eternal NOW!!!

[Louis Foxwell]

It would be fascinating to find out our universe funtioned like that, and that there could be more of them out there.

---

It is impossible to know of the existence of other universes. The argument for cosmological parallelism is, therefor, moot.

[tpanther]

You are quoting a creationist that happens to be an oceanographer. He is fundamentally wrong on several points in this short quote. His opinion isn’t worth much.

Wrong. Wrong and wrong.

Pitifully wrong.

But then godless liberalism always is!

[jimmyray]

You are quoting a creationist that happens to be an oceanographer...His opinion isn’t worth much.

That rebuttal was offered my an abiogenesis darwinist, who happens to belive in atheism. Thus, "His opinion isn’t worth much."

[Fichori]

“I am currently reading “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Dr Hugh Ross and highly recommend it to everyone.” [excerpt]

Unfortunately, Dr Ross compromises both Biblical integrity and science to make the two agree.

A combination that is not good for Christians or science.

Special Feature: Hugh Ross Exposé

The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross

[oldmanreedy]

"This used to be known as the 'Weak Anthropic Principle'. It was called 'weak' for a reason. GGG argues what used to known as the 'Strong Anthropic Principle'. It was called 'strong' for a reason. I see this debate tactic consistently in discussions with Darwinists, where the idea is that *any* darwinist argument is equivalent to *any* creationist argument, no matter how weak the darwinist argument is or how strong the creationist argument. This is the result of the rationale in the darwinist mind that 'everything is relative', therefore 'every opinion is equal'."

If you are implying that the Weak Anthropic Principle is referred to as 'weak' because it is generally considered to be a poor argument you are hilariously wrong. The adjectives 'weak' and 'strong' in this context have absolutely nothing to do with the correctness of their respective propositions.

"This is the result of a failure to understand probabilities. The probability that *some* event out of a set of possible outcomes will happen is equal to 1. The probability that a *specific* required event will occur is 1/n where n is the total number of possible outcomes."

The above exhibits such a catastrophic failure to understand rudimentary probability that I am amazed you were willing to expose it to public scrutiny. The probability of any given event drawn from a sample space of n elements is in no way required to be 1/n, as even a moments consideration of loaded dice demonstrates.

"To claim that the probability that *some* event will happen is equivalent to the claim that a specified event with probability 1/n has happened is to grossly misunderstand the problem."

Yeah I think its fair to say you have grossly misunderstood the problem.

[uscabjd]

How does Dr Ross compromise science?

[GodGunsGuts]

I agree. Dr. Ross is a wolf in sheep’s clothing IMHO.

[GourmetDan]

"If you are implying that the Weak Anthropic Principle is referred to as 'weak' because it is generally considered to be a poor argument you are hilariously wrong. The adjectives 'weak' and 'strong' in this context have absolutely nothing to do with the correctness of their respective propositions."

I notice that you are switching between the weakness of the argument and the idea of 'correctness'. That is a non sequitur as both of the arguments are philsophical in nature. The reason that the Weak Anthropic Principle is weak is because the fallacy of appeal to probability must be joined with the unobservable 'a priori' assumption that an infinite number of alternate universes actually exist such that the vanishingly small probabilities can be made to appear as though they are a 'possibility' that when joined to the single fact that we exist and observe can then be presented as an 'argument'. Stringing these thoughts together is ultimately based on the further 'a priori' assumption of the philosophy of naturalism.

There is no reason to believe that an infinite number of alternate universes could or would exist nor is there any reason to believe that these alternate universes (should they exist) would necessarily be random nor is there any reason to believe in naturalism that is not purely philosophical. The number of convenient assumptions has rapidly multiplied to an unmanageable number simply to justify the philosophical belief that observed design and fine tuning is merely 'apparent'. Occam's Razor tells us that this position is weaker than appealing to an unobserved designer.

"The above exhibits such a catastrophic failure to understand rudimentary probability that I am amazed you were willing to expose it to public scrutiny. The probability of any given event drawn from a sample space of n elements is in no way required to be 1/n, as even a moments consideration of loaded dice demonstrates."

Ah, another non sequitur. Obviously a loaded pair of dice are not probabilistic as even a moment's consideration would have revealed. If there is a catastrophic logical failure, it is attempting to equate loaded dice with probabilistic behavior. I am surprised you thought that you could get away with such... well not really.

"Yeah I think its fair to say you have grossly misunderstood the problem."

Yeah, I think it is fair to say that you have grossly misrepresented the problem.

[oldmanreedy]

I notice that you are switching between the weakness of the argument and the idea of 'correctness'. That is a non sequitur as both of the arguments are philsophical in nature. The reason that the Weak Anthropic Principle is weak is because the fallacy of appeal to probability must be joined with the unobservable 'a priori' assumption that an infinite number of alternate universes actually exist such that the vanishingly small probabilities can be made to appear as though they are a 'possibility' that when joined to the single fact that we exist and observe can then be presented as an 'argument'. Stringing these thoughts together is ultimately based on the further 'a priori' assumption of the philosophy of naturalism. There is no reason to believe that an infinite number of alternate universes could or would exist nor is there any reason to believe that these alternate universes (should they exist) would necessarily be random nor is there any reason to believe in naturalism that is not purely philosophical. The number of convenient assumptions has rapidly multiplied to an unmanageable number simply to justify the philosophical belief that observed design and fine tuning is merely 'apparent'. Occam's Razor tells us that this position is weaker than appealing to an unobserved designer.

This is absolutely unintelligible. My sole point was that your implication that philosophers have assigned term 'weak' to one version of the Anthropic Principle because they have decided it is a poorer argument is gravely in error. The Weak Anthropic Principle is called 'weak' because it makes a far less sweeping claim than the Strong Anthropic Principle. If there were no other versions of the Anthropic Principle (or if the version being referred to is understood from context) the Weak Anthropic Principle would probably just be called 'the Anthropic Principle'.

"Ah, another non sequitur. Obviously a loaded pair of dice are not probabilistic as even a moment's consideration would have revealed. If there is a catastrophic logical failure, it is attempting to equate loaded dice with probabilistic behavior. I am surprised you thought that you could get away with such... well not really."

Oh my god. Let me ask you a personal question: have you ever actually read a textbook on mathematical probability? Please answer honestly. Because if your definition of 'probabilistic' excludes weighted dice, then it contradicts the definition given in basically every modern text on probability theory. Multiple rolls of a weighted die would be modeled by the multinomial distribution.

[GourmetDan]

"This is absolutely unintelligible. My sole point was that your implication that philosophers have assigned term 'weak' to one version of the Anthropic Principle because they have decided it is a poorer argument is gravely in error. The Weak Anthropic Principle is called 'weak' because it makes a far less sweeping claim than the Strong Anthropic Principle."

No, the Weak Anthropic Principle is called weak because of the multiple assumptions and fallacies on which is is based.

"If there were no other versions of the Anthropic Principle (or if the version being referred to is understood from context) the Weak Anthropic Principle would probably just be called 'the Anthropic Principle'."

And if wishes were horses even beggars would ride.

"Oh my god. Let me ask you a personal question: have you ever actually read a textbook on mathematical probability? Please answer honestly. Because if your definition of 'probabilistic' excludes weighted dice, then it contradicts the definition given in basically every modern text on probability theory. Multiple rolls of a weighted die would be modeled by the multinomial distribution."

OMG, I obviously made a mistake in thinking that you were responding in context to the discussion at hand. I should have known better.

Let me ask you a personal question: are you proposing that the 'multiple universes' required for the Weak Anthropic Principle are not random wrt their physical properties? If so, you destroy the model (and have no argument) for there is a reason they are assumed to be random. If not, then you are merely off on an irrelevant tangent (and have no argument).

[oldmanreedy]

"No, the Weak Anthropic Principle is called weak because of the multiple assumptions and fallacies on which is is based. ".

Awesome, I thought that was what you meant. You are hilariously, factually, objectively, completely wrong. Here is the paper that introduced the terms 'weak' and 'strong' anthropic principle. Money quote:

"(2) those which only require the use of a 'weak' anthropic principle and;
(3) those which require the invocation of an extended (and hence rather more questionable 'strong') anthropic principle."

The extra little sprinkle of funny on this double-scoop of hilarity is that the Weak Anthropic Principle is sometimes criticized for being a tautology!

"OMG, I obviously made a mistake in thinking that you were responding in context to the discussion at hand. I should have known better."

The "context to the discussion at hand" is your original misstatement: "The probability that a *specific* required event will occur is 1/n where n is the total number of possible outcomes." Incidentally, if you would like a fuller explanation of the basic mathematical definitions that make this statement so very very wrong, don't hesitate to ask! I'm always up for teaching a little math.

Let me ask you a personal question: are you proposing that the 'multiple universes' required for the Weak Anthropic Principle are not random wrt their physical properties? If so, you destroy the model (and have no argument) for there is a reason they are assumed to be random. If not, then you are merely off on an irrelevant tangent (and have no argument).

hahahahahaha, I guess the answer to my question is 'no'. It's pretty weak for you to answer a question with another question, but I'm a nice guy so I'll try to answer anyways. I have absolutely no idea if multiple universes exist. That stuff is the kind of physics that is waaayyy over the heads of ordinary shlubs like you and me. However, if they do exist I'm pretty sure the distribution of their physical properties could be modeled by a random variable (or sequence of random variables). Why am I confident? Because the mathematical definition of random variable is so general that to fail it you have to invoke extremely weird sets whose existence is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.

Hey, now that I've done you a favor and answered your question, I want you to do something for me! I want you to realize that you know less about probability theory than most high-school seniors, and so should probably not be dragging it into philosophical debates. You definitely don't want to use the word 'random' in a serious argument until you actually know what you are talking about. MIT has a really nice (and free!) online introductory course in probability and statistics. Check it out, and in a few months you will be able to argue against evolution with a much higher level of sophistication!

[GourmetDan]

"Awesome, I thought that was what you meant. You are hilariously, factually, objectively, completely wrong. Here is the paper that introduced the terms 'weak' and 'strong' anthropic principle."

There's your fallacy of assuming philosophical naturalism right on the first page. Carter's Strong Anthropic Principle is recognized as being teleological rather than assuming philosophical naturalism.

"The extra little sprinkle of funny on this double-scoop of hilarity is that the Weak Anthropic Principle is sometimes criticized for being a tautology!"

It is a hilarious, double-scoop tautology.

" Incidentally, if you would like a fuller explanation of the basic mathematical definitions that make this statement so very very wrong, don't hesitate to ask! I'm always up for teaching a little math."

Go for it. Tell me why the probability that a *specific* required event will occur is not 1/n where n is the total number of possible outcomes and each event is equally probable.

"I guess the answer to my question is 'no'. It's pretty weak for you to answer a question with another question, but I'm a nice guy so I'll try to answer anyways. I have absolutely no idea if multiple universes exist. That stuff is the kind of physics that is waaayyy over the heads of ordinary shlubs like you and me."

OK, then why did you propose the probabilistic distribution of a loaded set of dice for a belief that requires random multiple universe generation to support your existence?

[Bosh Flimshaw]

Do you get paid a nickel every time you type the word “fallacy?”