What We Believe But Cannot Prove

GeeMack said:
Of course an entity whose existence is wholly unevidenced, making a universe in violation of the laws of physics as we understand them, would be definitively supernatural. The entire premise is nonsense of course. An exercise in whimsy. Not even rational philosophical speculation.
Click to expand...

It's one of punshhh's 'let's pretend' threads. A waste of time really,but they are amusing. I say,let's pretend that the universe was created by Santa Claus with a nearly infinite number of elves. We may as well discuss that as anything else with punshhh.
 
Mashuna said:
But punshhh is claiming that there's no intrinsic difference between crating a table and creating a universe, just a matter of scale. This is an unsupported equivocation between the different meanings of 'creator'.
Click to expand...

Could you explain the two different meanings of 'creator' that you are referring to? Thanks.

Malerin said:
As Hawking puts it:
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”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
Click to expand...

laca said:
I'm just amazed how anyone can think the fine tuning argument works on anyone but the feeble-minded.
Click to expand...

Yes, that Hawking fellow is such a dolt! Feeble-minded is an apt description of Dr. Stephen Hawking. ;)
 
dafydd said:
Yes,a doozy even by his standards. And he doesn't even know why.
Click to expand...

Digest these words;

"My point in this thread was very simple and I stated it in a few sentences.

The rest of the thread has been a process of skeptics trying to assert something they are not in a position to assert. Namely that there are no gods and thats its irrational to consider their existence."

Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion that its irrational to consider the existence of gods?
 
punshhh said:
Digest these words;

"My point in this thread was very simple and I stated it in a few sentences.

The rest of the thread has been a process of skeptics trying to assert something they are not in a position to assert. Namely that there are no gods and thats its irrational to consider their existence."

Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion that its irrational to consider the existence of gods?
Click to expand...

Because it is rational to position with the Null Hypothesis, by definition.
 
Beth said:
Malerin said:
As Hawking puts it:
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”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
Click to expand...

laca said:
I'm just amazed how anyone can think the fine tuning argument works on anyone but the feeble-minded.
Click to expand...

Yes, that Hawking fellow is such a dolt! Feeble-minded is an apt description of Dr. Stephen Hawking. ;)
Click to expand...

If you read that as "the fine tuning argument as taken to imply a creator god", it makes much more sense in the context of what this thread is about. If read that way, then laca isn't calling Hawking feeble-minded, since the view that "fine tuning" implies a creator god - also known as the watchmaker argument - is not Hawking's position.

Also, take note of how Malerin's quote above is taken from some other unspecified source rather than from Hawking directly. I suspect that it is some ID proponentist quoting Hawking out of context, but we can only guess.
 
punshhh said:
Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion that its irrational to consider the existence of gods?
Click to expand...


It's irrational to apply any more consideration to the existence of anything for which there is no evidence (your "intelligent creator" god in this case) than to the existence of any other thing with an equally complete lack of evidence (the Tooth Fairy, invisible pink unicorns, Santa Claus, Russell's teapot, etc.).
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
If you read that as "the fine tuning argument as taken to imply a creator god", it makes much more sense in the context of what this thread is about. If read that way, then laca isn't calling Hawking feeble-minded, since the view that "fine tuning" implies a creator god - also known as the watchmaker argument - is not Hawking's position.

Also, take note of how Malerin's quote above is taken from some other unspecified source rather than from Hawking directly. I suspect that it is some ID proponentist quoting Hawking out of context, but we can only guess.
Click to expand...

Wiki cites that quotation as from p. 125 of A Brief History of Time, but I haven't got my copy close at hand to check the context.
 
Prometheus said:
[/HILITE]

Wiki cites that quotation as from p. 125 of A Brief History of Time, but I haven't got my copy close at hand to check the context.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, but I remember checking it awhile back. Pretty sure it's a direct quote.
 
Beth said:
Yes, that Hawking fellow is such a dolt! Feeble-minded is an apt description of Dr. Stephen Hawking. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that Dr. Stephen Hawking was convinced by the fine-tuning argument. Maybe you could point me to the source of this?
 
punshhh said:
Digest these words;

"My point in this thread was very simple and I stated it in a few sentences.

The rest of the thread has been a process of skeptics trying to assert something they are not in a position to assert. Namely that there are no gods and thats its irrational to consider their existence."

Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion that its irrational to consider the existence of gods?
Click to expand...

It's not irrational to consider anything. It's irrational however to draw the, well, irrational conclusion.
 
Prometheus said:
Wiki cites that quotation as from p. 125 of A Brief History of Time, but I haven't got my copy close at hand to check the context.
Click to expand...

Malerin said:
Neither do I, but I remember checking it awhile back. Pretty sure it's a direct quote.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that he's said what the quote above claims in regard to cosmological constants, but read closer: I doubt Hawking would write in his own book:

Malerin said:
“For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge [...]
Click to expand...
(my bold)

This is clearly someone else quoting him. Try googling "For example, Hawking writes" - I find the quote above on domains with names like theologyweb, sciencefindsgod and conservativecolloquium. Someone somewhere has been quote mining and has struck gold, is all I'm saying.

It's a minor point since the quote itself is not in dispute, but I would be more comfortable with a more direct source, especially given Hawking's recent clarifications of his stance on gods.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
I wasn't, it was the skeptics who hyped it up by taking pot shots at it.
Click to expand...
Oh. So below is...?
punshhh said:
You miss understand my point here, let me put it again.

I posit the existence of an "intelligent creator".

My evidence is;

Intelligent creators have evolved naturally in existence.

My proof is;

Keyboards exist, which can only come into existence by being created by an intelligent creator, namely humanity.

Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom