Can theists be rational?

[westprog]

This is a rather bold assertion imo.



Of course its staggeringly unlikely. If you seemingly arbitrarily decide that all the constants are independent and each could have taken any random real number then the probability of any universe goes to 0.
For starters you need to talk about ranges of values which include the constants we have. But what ranges?
Then...
How do you define big changes and small changes?
Do we just vary one constant at a time or can we do several?
Can we have extra dimensions (spatial and/or temporal)?
Can we add extra forces and corresponding constants?
Are we sure these alternative Universes could not support intelligent life or are we biased by our view of the world and lack of imagination?
etc...
Without answers to the above can we really make any meaningful statement about FT?

We don't know even if it's possible that the values could have been anything different. We don't even know if it's possible that there could have been an entirely different set of forces.

We can't make any meaningful statement about FT except "This looks a bit odd".

 

[Belz...]

That's not logical at all.

Since we can't see a single photon, does it follow that we can't directly sense light?

Nit-picking. We can sense individual photos, though, if they are energetic enough when they hit the retina. It's just not likely to happen unless you're playing with X-rays or something.

 

[westprog]

We can sense individual photos, though, if they are energetic enough when they hit the retina.

That sounds very painful. I tell the children to pass them carefully, don't throw.

 

[Belz...]

Reputable physicists, such as Hawking, have talked about the apparent fine-tuning of the constants. I've quoted almost a dozen, I think, in this thread alone.

Well, the problem with saying there's an apparent fine-tuning is that we have no other universe to compare this one to. Also, the only thing that makes it look fine-tuned is because the cosmological constants are what they are. What does that tell us ???

I mean, who cares that there wouldn't be stars if one of those constants was a little off ? The universe would be vastly different, but there's no way to know if there'd be vastly different intelligent critters having this same conversation, right now!

 

[Belz...]

That sounds very painful. I tell the children to pass them carefully, don't throw.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html

 

[Belz...]

Even if I accepted that point, it is only necessary to allow god to be omnipotent with respect to this universe, which provides no such logical conumdrum.

So your definition of "omnipotent" as far as this discussion is concerned is that God can do the physically impossible but not the logically impossible, right ?

If so, then why this :

An omnipotent being would leave traces or not, as he wished.

If he can only bend physics then he can't really wish reality away. Interracting with stuff leaves traces of the interraction. The only way to have that not happen is to change the laws of logic. And you seemed to agree that our hypothetical god can't.

It's possible to easily dismiss almost anything, but since the usual definition of god includes omnipotence, then ruling out omnipotence and making up some arbitrary other limitations is obviously going to get the result you want.

So you don't agree that omnipotence is incoherent ? Can god create a rock that he can't lift ? Really ? The question doesn't even make sense, but then it's a direct consequence of the concept of omnipotence.

There's no logical implausibility in a being having total control over the universe. It's no more impossible than an author having control over a book.

Good analogy. Unfortunately for you, if the author erases a passage and writes a new one over it, he'll leave traces of the correction.

That sounds to me like an assertion, but I don't see anything to justify it. If I hide a key in a drawer and nobody finds it, the key is still there. A tree falling in a forest always makes a sound.

You're still not paying attention. If the effect cannot be observed in principle then it is not an effect.

I think the corollary is obvious.

I didn't follow, here.

 

[Beth]

This video is an argument that the fine-tuning argument doesn't support the Christian god, not a generic creator god. The generic creator god is the fine-tuning argument that's been presented in this thread.

ETA: Whoops, the video Paulhoff posted in #2080. I didn't realize it was the end of the page, not the current thread.

 

[westprog]

Well, the problem with saying there's an apparent fine-tuning is that we have no other universe to compare this one to. Also, the only thing that makes it look fine-tuned is because the cosmological constants are what they are. What does that tell us ???

I mean, who cares that there wouldn't be stars if one of those constants was a little off ? The universe would be vastly different, but there's no way to know if there'd be vastly different intelligent critters having this same conversation, right now!

It's not that difficult to figure out what the universe would be like if the constants were different. Just do the same calculations and enter different numbers. AFAIAA most of the alternative universes are very similar to this one, but without the slight impurities. The thing is, we rely on the slight impurities.

A universe that was entirely hydrogen and helium would be extremely similar to this one, and there's no reason to suppose that the gas clouds would be any different. If such a universe would produce hydrogen people to have discussions about helium density, then we would have them here too.

 

[westprog]

So your definition of "omnipotent" as far as this discussion is concerned is that God can do the physically impossible but not the logically impossible, right ?

If so, then why this :



If he can only bend physics then he can't really wish reality away. Interracting with stuff leaves traces of the interraction. The only way to have that not happen is to change the laws of logic. And you seemed to agree that our hypothetical god can't.

A god not bound by the laws of physics need not leave any trace of an interaction. I've already pointed out that quantum uncertainty leaves plenty of room for an intervening god to direct things any way he wants entirely undetected - in principle undetected - and still have effects.

The fact that such a god could operate undetected does not of course mean that he couldn't make himself as obvious as possible when he wanted to.

So you don't agree that omnipotence is incoherent ? Can god create a rock that he can't lift ? Really ? The question doesn't even make sense, but then it's a direct consequence of the concept of omnipotence.

Can an omnipotent god flonk a quarg? If not, is he omnipotent? I don't see how ill-formed propositions can limit what an omnipotent god might do.

In any case, even if we limit the power of a sub-omnipotent god over himself, we have no need to limit his power over the universe, which can be absolute without any logical contradiction.

Good analogy. Unfortunately for you, if the author erases a passage and writes a new one over it, he'll leave traces of the correction.

Detectable by the characters in the story?

You're still not paying attention. If the effect cannot be observed in principle then it is not an effect.

You're saying that, but you need to demonstrate it.

Imagine that you've upset god by your posts on JREF. He directs radioactive particles - which are inherently random - into your liver. You wake up dead with someone looking like your avatar looming over you.

There is no way god's intervention can be detected. Those radioactive particles appear to be the result of normal quantum random effects. Are you effected by this? I would say so. God stays invisible, and punishes you for the 13,000 posts which Pleaseth Him Not.

I didn't follow, here.

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible.

 

[Paulhoff]

A universe that was entirely hydrogen and helium would be extremely similar to this one, and there's no reason to suppose that the gas clouds would be any different. If such a universe would produce hydrogen people to have discussions about helium density, then we would have them here too.

Stars produce light elements and supenovas produce the much heavier elements has they explode. When the uniserse was first born, there was nothing to speak of other then hydrogen, helium and traces of lithium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

Paul



Oh, I forgot the Darkmatter, lots and lots of that.

 

[Beth]

It's not that difficult to figure out what the universe would be like if the constants were different. Just do the same calculations and enter different numbers. AFAIAA most of the alternative universes are very similar to this one, but without the slight impurities. The thing is, we rely on the slight impurities.

A universe that was entirely hydrogen and helium would be extremely similar to this one, and there's no reason to suppose that the gas clouds would be any different. If such a universe would produce hydrogen people to have discussions about helium density, then we would have them here too.

Perhaps we do. How would be able to tell if the gas clouds in our universe contain intelligent beings?

 

[Malerin]

Antecedents come before pronouns, and "post hoc" is Latin. What is this obsession about me being wrong?

It pushes my hypocritical button, but it is fun trying to watch you weasel out of it. Tell us about the car in your garage that is fast and made of wood

Do you, perchance, have anything to say about the meat of my arguments in prior threads? You know, the stuff I meant, as opposed to which adjectives I throw in when considering almost everything logically possible to be possible, or which antecedents of which pronouns I refer to when I say "or post hoc"?

What is this? Post number 2000? You ever get around to challenging Hawking on his claim: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"?

I really don't mind being wrong, and I absolutely love being corrected... when I'm wrong... because I learn things. I love learning things. But it gets pretty irritating to get corrected about minutia that I'm not wrong about--especially irrelevant minutia.

Which is why you spend time defending it. It would have just been easier to own up. But I suppose you would like us to think you talk like this: my wife is in the house, and she's very pretty and energy efficient

 

[fls]

Imagine that you've upset god by your posts on JREF. He directs radioactive particles - which are inherently random - into your liver. You wake up dead with someone looking like your avatar looming over you.

If it's directing radioactive particles/quantum effects, wouldn't it no longer be random in appearance?

There is no way god's intervention can be detected. Those radioactive particles appear to be the result of normal quantum random effects. Are you effected by this? I would say so. God stays invisible, and punishes you for the 13,000 posts which Pleaseth Him Not.

Wouldn't this look like excess cases of liver cancer and wouldn't those excess cases follow a pattern?

Linda

 

[Tubbythin]

It is possible to take any event of a given probability, and to subdivide the alternatives into other events of equal probability. Hence we can regard all events as being equally probable, and never get surprised or suspicious about anything.

But we don't know what any of these probabilities are.

 

[westprog]

If it's directing radioactive particles/quantum effects, wouldn't it no longer be random in appearance?

It would be relatively easy to spread other radioactive particles around in such a way that randomness was maintained.

Wouldn't this look like excess cases of liver cancer and wouldn't those excess cases follow a pattern?

Linda

Maybe some other guy would get let off to keep the stats good. In any case, how would we know that there was an excess of cases when all we had to go on was the sample we had?

 

[Tubbythin]

We don't know even if it's possible that the values could have been anything different. We don't even know if it's possible that there could have been an entirely different set of forces.

We can't make any meaningful statement about FT except "This looks a bit odd".

Right. So why make statements about how all values of the constants are equally probable?

 

[westprog]

Perhaps we do. How would be able to tell if the gas clouds in our universe contain intelligent beings?

It's difficult to see how we'd know. They'd quite possibly operate on an entirely different timescale.

However, the point remains the same - this universe is particularly suited to us - so why are we around when there are perfectly good hydrogen beasts with millenial lifespans?

 

[Belz...]

It's not that difficult to figure out what the universe would be like if the constants were different. Just do the same calculations and enter different numbers. AFAIAA most of the alternative universes are very similar to this one, but without the slight impurities. The thing is, we rely on the slight impurities.

A universe that was entirely hydrogen and helium would be extremely similar to this one, and there's no reason to suppose that the gas clouds would be any different. If such a universe would produce hydrogen people to have discussions about helium density, then we would have them here too.

Hmmmkay... so what are you saying ? Are you agreeing with me or not ?

 

[westprog]

But we don't know what any of these probabilities are.

No, that's an assumption. We can calculate the likelihood of this universe if we assume all values of the constants are of equal probability. It's possible that the constants have to have the value they do, in which case the probability of them being what they are is 1, and being anything else is 0.

 

[westprog]

Hmmmkay... so what are you saying ? Are you agreeing with me or not ?

I don't think so. What are you saying?