Can theists be rational?

[Paulhoff]

That would seem to be extremely precise fine tuning.

Read what I wrote again, carefully, the universe is almost empty of life, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it has NO LIFE.

Paul

 

[westprog]

Yes we do because we don't know if g could be .95 of its present value (let alone that we don't know if g was different everything else could be the same). Remember the map is not the territory and at the moment we haven't even got to the map making stage!

Linda is at least waiting a few posts before we go around in circles.

 

[westprog]

Read what I wrote again, carefully, the universe is almost empty of life, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it has NO LIFE.

Paul

I read it. You seem to be saying that one part in 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 isn't fine tuning. It's what I would call cutting it fine.

You seem to be ruling it out by saying "Well, if I were God I'd have the universe bulging at the seams with coriander and tigers and amoebae." I haven't been pushing the God option so that's not significant for me.

 

[Paulhoff]

I read it. You seem to be saying that one part in 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 isn't fine tuning. It's what I would call cutting it fine.

You seem to be ruling it out by saying "Well, if I were God I'd have the universe bulging at the seams with coriander and tigers and amoebae." I haven't been pushing the God option so that's not significant for me.

One part in 999999999999999999999 etc means the universe is anything but a good place for life.

Paul

 

[westprog]

So you are referring to God as a First Cause?

I'm not sure how that comes from what I said.

In what way is undectectable intervention different from no intervention? And how would we obtain any idea about God if it was undetectable?

Linda

I gave an example of how an undetectable event would make a difference. Using a quantum effect to kill Hitler. That would make a huge difference, but we'd never know.

If God wants to be undetectable, he can be. If he wants to make himself known, he can do that as well. If he wants to kick off the universe and leave it, he can do that. He can even not exist.

 

[westprog]

No, the whole package requires the simulation, and the simulated. You are talking about everything, not something in particular.

I don't know what you're trying to say there, but it's certainly not the case that a simulation needs more energy than the thing simulated. Otherwise Halo would be prohibitively expensive to run.

To produce a galactic cluster requires an enormous amount of energy. To simulate a galactic cluster as seen from earth could probably be done with existing technology and wouldn't be that expensive.

Although one could say that the earth is a simulation in a non-simulation space, for example., thats's not the issue, the issue is everything.

You cant just divide out what you think fits and what doesn't.

Either this is all there is, or there's more (like god) in which case the whole energy requirement starts to escalate that the whole thing requires (inc god)

Cant work, too many turtles and occams razor is sharp on this one. See below in my sig.





What else do you have, there's no evidence that this is a simulation even if this is not the only available universe.

 

[Darat]

We might need a TOE to determine if g could have a different value. We don't need it to determine how the universe would behave if it did have a different value. It's no more speculative than precalculating the path of a satellite before launching.

Sorry westprog but what you are doing is nothing more than science fiction, unless we know that g could be different it is pure speculation as to what the universe would be like if it was different.

 

[Beth]

That's what I said. You KNOW, from my example, that it's a hallucination. But it doesn't matter. The hypothetical is that somebody has an awakened experience of the easter bunny. By your logic, this is evidence that the easter bunny exists.

Well, if a sober and reliable adult were to actually testify to such an experience, yes it would qualify as evidence. Particularly if there was no reason to suspect hallucinations, practical jokes or Harvey . If you think such evidence should be rejected on the grounds that there is no easter bunny, well, then the fact that there is no sober and reliable adult claiming such an experience comes into play.

Bigfoot would be a better analogy as there are sober and reliable witnesses who claim to seen bigfoot. It's not what I consider convincing evidence as there are other explanations for their experiences and no material evidence for bigfoot, but such testimony is evidence for the existance of bigfoot. OTOH, someone claiming to have had an hallucination of bigfoot is not evidence of bigfoot's existance. Hopefully, you can see the difference between a sober reliable adult witness testifying to the existance of something and a sober reliable adult witness testifying to a hallucination of something.

 

[fls]

I'm not sure how that comes from what I said.

It looked like you were saying that the universe was the black box.

I gave an example of how an undetectable event would make a difference. Using a quantum effect to kill Hitler. That would make a huge difference, but we'd never know.

If God wants to be undetectable, he can be. If he wants to make himself known, he can do that as well. If he wants to kick off the universe and leave it, he can do that. He can even not exist.

I am still unconvinced that a micro-managing God would be undetectable - not so much by the methods (setting aside the lack of an explanation as to what difference a single quantum event can make) as by the outcomes. However, this seems to have little to do with what anyone talks about when talking about gods. Things are meant to be different in the presence of gods than in their absence. And claims are made to know gods by their actions/effects - whether they are physical or mental. Nobody seems to be claiming that gods are undetectable, so why worry about arguing that they can be?

Linda

 

[westprog]

Sorry westprog but what you are doing is nothing more than science fiction, unless we know that g could be different it is pure speculation as to what the universe would be like if it was different.

I never said it wasn't speculation.

 

[Malerin]

Sorry westprog but what you are doing is nothing more than science fiction, unless we know that g could be different it is pure speculation as to what the universe would be like if it was different.

I don't think physicists like Hawking, Linde, and all the other experts I cited are engaging in pure speculation when they claim the values of the constants need to be incredibly precise for life to exist. Do you think they're just pulling numbers out of their asses? It's a nearly universal claim in cosmology. I have only seen one dissenting opinion quoted.

In 1999, the John Templeton Foundation made one million available in grants to study cosmological fine-tuning. The winners:

Dr. Nick Bostrom, London School of Economics
“Developing a Bayesian Methodology for Anthropic Reasoning and Teleological Explanations in Cosmology”

Dr. Bernard Carr, Queen Mary & Westfield College and Dr. Neil Turok, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University Visitors Scholars Program

Dr. Attila Csoto, Eotvos Lorand University
“Carbon Production in Stars and Complexification Processes in the Universe”

Dr. John F. Donoghue, University of Massachusetts
“Search for Mechanisms for Fine-Tuning”

Dr. Catherine L. Drennan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Early Enzymes of Life”

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, University of Washington
“Fine-Tuning of Local Astronomical Parameters for Habitability and Measurability”

Dr. Bruno Guiderdoni, Institut d’ Astrophysique de Paris
“Fine-Tuning from Galaxy Formation to the Stability of Planetary Systems”

Dr. Laura Landweber, Princeton University
“The Origins and Implications of Order in the Genetic Code”

Dr. Andrei Linde, Stanford University
“Inflationary Universe and Anthropic Principle”

Dr. Mario Livio, Space Telescope Science Institute
“Life in the Multiverse”

Dr. David R. Tytler, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California, San Diego
“Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the Baryon to Photon Ratio”

Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University
“Eternal Inflation and the Present Universe”

Dr. Michael S. Vogeley, Drexel University
“Tests of Cosmological Timing and Tuning from Galaxy Formation in Cosmic Voids”

Dr. John K. Webb, University of New South Wales
“Do the Constants of Nature Vary with Time and Space?”


http://www.templeton.org/archive/cosmology_fine-tuning/index.html#summary
People here like to dismiss fine-tuning, but it is being taken seriously in academic circles.

 

[Paulhoff]

Victor J Stenger;

Fine-tuning, Stenger argues, comes with caveats. The fact that a universe with different physical constants might be inhospitable to life as we know it does not necessarily mean that it is inhospitable to any form of life. Currently, there is no way of determining if a universe allows for life or not. Further, most of this universe, especially the interstellar vacuum, appears to be devoid of life; other physical constants may exist that allow a much greater density of life than in this universe.

Paul

 

[Malerin]

Victor J Stenger;


Paul

That's the one. Here's the program he based his research on. Fun to play around with.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/monkey.html

 

[yy2bggggs]

Parsimony only helps you if reality is, in fact, parsimonious. But without any evidence, your assumption that multiplaying entities is more likely to result in an incorrect view of reality is itself faith-based. You may think that atheism is more parsimonious, and yet still be completely wrong about reality being atheistic because reality is theistic, complex, and doesn't conform to the law of parsimony.
...
If those entities (such as god) do exist, then those entities are not being multiplied unnecessarily. That's the key word here: in order to know if I'm multiplying entities unncesessarily, you need to know that reality is likely atheistic, which is the very thing you're trying to prove. Parsimony will get you nowhere on this.
...
Parsimony only helps you if you know reality lends itself to the simplest explanation
...
Parsimony is only valid if you can prove that reality is simple and atheistic materialism is the most parsimonious theory

There's a common theme here, and it seems to be your misunderstanding of what parsimony is, and is about. What you seem to be saying is that, since parsimony favors simple explanations over extrapolations, it assumes that reality itself is simple.

I think you miss the whole point of parsimony by confusing it with simplicity. Parsimony isn't about simplicity, it's about restricting extrapolation. The notion of reality not being "parsiminous" is nonsensible; reality could be simple, or complex. You need parsimony more when reality is complex, not simpler.

Parsimony is a means of making sure that your assertions fit the data, by keeping you from speculating. It's not about assuming reality is simple, it's about assuming that fantasy is complex. When you let go of the reigns, you're going to wander, and if it's not the data that guides your beliefs... you're wandering aimlessly.

That's the point of parsimony--not to assume that reality is simple, but to assume that extrapolation is problematic. Parsimony doesn't glue you to the simple--it glues you to the data. The only possible reality that is not parsimonious, is a reality that relies on magic privy knowledge.

In the absence of any evidence, yes, the odds of you being right or wrong are 50/50.

No. In the absence of any evidence of an entity's existence, the probability that the entity exists is near 0. People that are 50 feet tall, 100 feet tall, 200 miles long, etc, don't exist. There are an infinite number of x's such that "people who are x long" do not exist. There are an infinite number of x's such that "animals with x argms" do not exist. There are a large number of arrangements of DNA that a person can possibly have, that nobody ever had, and nobody has, and nobody ever will have. The number of possible animals you can make using DNA, that have never, never do, and will never, exist, dwarf the number of animals that do. There's a virtually infinite number of thoughts that people could possibly have, novels that could possibly be written, dances that could possibly be performed, etc, that never have come into fruition, and never will.

Entities that do not exist far dwarf the number of entities that do. And the only way to guarantee that you'll even be right 50% of the time is to be extremely careful. The more bizaare the entity, the more likely it is that the entity doesn't exist.

And finally, I don't have to prove atheism; I merely have to not have a good reason to believe there's a god, and poof--I'm an atheist. You don't have to prove theism either. But if you're defending theism as rational, you can't cheat. You need to demonstrate that you have a rational reason. That you can believe it and we can't prove you wrong is not such a demonstration--that is, in fact, the same burden that the guy who believes the CIA is beaming thoughts into his head can cling to.

You have to show your reasoning is sound. So far, you've done none of this.

 

[Paulhoff]

Download, Victor Stenger starts about 12 minutes in.

http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/POI_2007_03_02_Victor_Stenger.mp3

By the way, I have seen and talked to him.

Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't know what you're trying to say there, but it's certainly not the case that a simulation needs more energy than the thing simulated. Otherwise Halo would be prohibitively expensive to run.

To produce a galactic cluster requires an enormous amount of energy. To simulate a galactic cluster as seen from earth could probably be done with existing technology and wouldn't be that expensive.

As seen from Earth, a galactic cluster is scattered blobs of light in the sky. Simulating those light blobs is easy enough.

Simulating the entire galactic cluster down to the quantum mechanical level, though, would necessarily involve a computer larger than the galactic cluster.

 

[westprog]

As seen from Earth, a galactic cluster is scattered blobs of light in the sky. Simulating those light blobs is easy enough.

Simulating the entire galactic cluster down to the quantum mechanical level, though, would necessarily involve a computer larger than the galactic cluster.

I must say that if I were writing a computer game I'd go for option 1.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know what you're trying to say there, but it's certainly not the case that a simulation needs more energy than the thing simulated. Otherwise Halo would be prohibitively expensive to run.

Westprog, you seem to be forgetting a very important fact about HALO: not everything in the simulated universe is being simulated. The textures are not quite as detailed as they would be in a simulation of a reality with, say, atoms. The entire universe of Halo isn't being simulated. In fact, the only portions that are even being rendered are those you actually see. So, yes, in the Halo simulation the computer needs to be at least as complex as the simulation.

But with reality, we have enormous amounts of detail, and billions of people who observe various parts of it. Now, imagine the sheer amount of computing power required to render ALL that at once. Why, it would require a computer more complex than the simulated universe.

 

[Belz...]

Well, if a sober and reliable adult were to actually testify to such an experience, yes it would qualify as evidence.

Even when we know we made up the entity in question ? Please, Beth. I think we both know that, no matter how sober or reliable this person may be, his claim would be rejected because we know for a fact that the easter bunny is fiction, and because he could simply be wrong about it.

But when it comes to god, people would like us to make an exception for it. No, I don't think I will.

Bigfoot would be a better analogy as there are sober and reliable witnesses who claim to seen bigfoot.

It would still be weak evidence, assuming it was evidence at all. But centuries of fruitless search for that critter pretty much put it in the same camp as the easter bunny.

 

[Belz...]

That's the point of parsimony--not to assume that reality is simple, but to assume that extrapolation is problematic.

Yoink!