Can theists be rational?

[yy2bggggs]

RevDisturba:

Penrose was not talking about what you think he was. He's talking about the proportion of configurations of the universe that has the entropy of the big bang being what we think it is, compared to all possible configurations (you could say, arrangements) of the universe. He's not talking about the chance that universes which come into being are like our universe.

PixyMisa:

The number RevDisturba is throwing about is another reference to Penrose's book, The Emperor's New Mind, discussed earlier in the thread (trillion=10¹², there are 10 of them, plus 3 more, so that's 10¹²³).

 

[PixyMisa]

We do have loads of circumstantial evdience to support the existence of God.

If by "loads" you mean "none whatsoever", then I fully agree.

Even in science sometimes we have no empirical evdience to support an event or object and rely on circumstantial evdience and guess work. The higgs boson is a good example.

We have predicted ranges of mass for the Higgs boson. We can conduct experiments to test the hypothesis. We are doing this.

None of this applies to God.

Or string theory.

There are experimental tests being done to confirm or refute certain aspects of string theory.

Or black holes (before there was observational evdience to support them).

Oh, sure, before we had evidence we didn't have evidence. Great.

All were assumed as near fact.

There's one small problem here: This is also untrue.

We have cosmological arguments (Craig and Koons first cause arguments etc) for evdience for the existence of God

Worthless, as has been demonstrated here.

as well other ontological arguments as proof for the existence of God (such as Kurt Godels ontological argument).

For all the respect I have for Godel, this is likewise worthless. Of course, Godel did not consider it a proof of the existence of God, rather it was a formalisation of existing ontological arguments. That is, if we accept the premises it is intended to be a rigorous argument for the existence of God.

There's one small problem here: There is no reason whatsoever for us to accept the premises.

So I do not agree that we have no evidence for the existence of God.

That's nice. You are, however, wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Penrose was not talking about what you think he was. He's talking about the proportion of configurations of the universe that has the entropy of the big bang being what we think it is, compared to all possible configurations (you could say, arrangements) of the universe. He's not talking about the chance that universes which come into being are like our universe.

So, in other words, there is only a 1 in 10¹²³ chance of getting our Universe, but there's a much larger (but unspecified) chance of getting a universe that can support life.

The number RevDisturba is throwing about is another reference to Penrose's book, The Emperor's New Mind, discussed earlier in the thread (trillion=10¹², there are 10 of them, plus 3 more, so that's 10¹²³).

Right. I'll assume that Penrose did better on that part of the book than the main subject.

 

[RevDisturba]

Show your work.

Well it wasn't my work (I wish it was) Its many peoples work all PhDs and at the top of th their field. Here is some more supporting evdiences

Quotes from: STEPHEN HAWKING' UNIVERSE By John Boslough.

Consider the odds of shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece. Is that the kind of event that led to the Big Bang? Is our universe an enormous reversal of entropy? Or is it-literally-a miracle? P.123

Wheeler agrees with Hawking and Carter that our own universe is uniquely fine-tuned to produce life, even if in just one small, lost corner. P. 125

THE CREATOR AND THE COSMOS By Hugh Ross

The growth of the universe so close to the border between collapse and eternal expansion that man has not been able to measure, it has been just at the proper rate to allow galaxies and stars to form. "In fact" said Hawking "a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is quite unlikely. If one consider the possible constants and laws that could have emerged , the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense. P. 123

At the 10'43 of a second of the Big Bang the flatness of the universe must have been precise to within one in 10'60. This makes the flatness parameter the most accurate number in all of physics and suggest a fine tuning of the universe, to set up conditions suitable for the emergence of stars, galaxies, and life of exquisite precision. If this were indeed a coincidence, then it would be a fluke so extraordinary as to make all other cosmic coincidences pale in insignificance. P. 26

The universe must be fine tuned to get enough nucleons, but also a precise number of electrons must exist. Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10-37 or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have so overcome the gravitational forces that galaxies, stars and planets never would have formed. One part in 10-37 is such an incredible balance that it is hard to visualize. P 115

Sorry for the broken link here is the page but its not pdf....Hmm every time I try to post it the url blanks out the entire page...I will try to post it in its own box.

see below...

; {>

 

[RevDisturba]

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...being+smooth+penrose&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

 

[yy2bggggs]

So, in other words, there is only a 1 in 10¹²³ chance of getting our Universe, but there's a much larger (but unspecified) chance of getting a universe that can support life.

Not exactly. The 10¹²³ figure itself is a logarithm, but that's the nit picky part.

I guess it's worth an explanation for the theists, since this is the second reference to it (and neither theist understands what Penrose was really up to).

Take a "snapshot" of reality as we find it... right..... NOW! Done... okay, call that configuration A. Now suppose that our sun were suddenly yanked out of existence. In its place, we have an equivalent mass black hole--the center of gravity of the black hole is exactly where our sun was, the angular momentum is the same, etc. Call that configuration B.

We wouldn't notice configuration B for 8 minutes--since the sun is 8 light minutes away. 8 minutes later, however, we would suddenly notice that something was severely wrong. No more light from the sun--no heat. It all winds down from there... the clock starts ticking on death of the entire planet, which is sure to follow. Quite a horrid situation.

But take B again, and let's trace time backwards using physical laws. Somehow, at configuration B, all of us are walking around on the planet earth, with body temperatures roughly around 37C, going about our business. There's no real way we could get to be that way, having orbited nothing but a black hole. The entropy simply doesn't make sense. Given A, we could trace all the way back to the big bang.

The configuration B is part of the (1-exp(-10¹²³)) portion of the universe that Penrose is considering in totality--it is a configuration of the universe. It is not one of the exp(-10¹²³) configurations. Penrose wasn't even trying to make a point about the odds of existence in the first place, but rather, about entropy itself. Theists who couldn't wrap their head around what Penrose was talking about did all of the misinterpreting.

Right. I'll assume that Penrose did better on that part of the book than the main subject.

As it so happens, yeah... it wasn't as... odd is the nice word... as the rest of the book. But this was about 30 years ago, and Penrose was considering a simpler model of the universe anyway. It certainly doesn't take into account dark matter, for example. But all of that's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what the theists are invoking it for in the first place.

 

[RevDisturba]

RevDisturba:

Penrose was not talking about what you think he was. He's talking about the proportion of configurations of the universe that has the entropy of the big bang being what we think it is, compared to all possible configurations (you could say, arrangements) of the universe. He's not talking about the chance that universes which come into being are like our universe.

PixyMisa:

The number RevDisturba is throwing about is another reference to Penrose's book, The Emperor's New Mind, discussed earlier in the thread (trillion=10¹², there are 10 of them, plus 3 more, so that's 10¹²³).

Pixie is right only that that figure was in 'The Emperor's New Mind'. I am NOT throwing anything about. I am fully astounded that I am am being questioned on what I feel is knowledge common. (in philosophical circles).

Well I would be the first to admit that Physics are not my forte. I have a degree in comparative theology with emphasis in ancient languages. However its evident that the calculations of Penrose are showing that the probability of universe being conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 ! The phrase "tremendously improbable" is wholly inadequate to describe this possibility.


In Penroses own words;
“
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.”

Is that clear enough? Sorry thats just the way I see it, and think I am correct.

; }>

 

[RevDisturba]

RevDisturba:

Penrose was not talking about what you think he was. He's talking about the proportion of configurations of the universe that has the entropy of the big bang being what we think it is, compared to all possible configurations (you could say, arrangements) of the universe. He's not talking about the chance that universes which come into being are like our universe.

PixyMisa:

The number RevDisturba is throwing about is another reference to Penrose's book, The Emperor's New Mind, discussed earlier in the thread (trillion=10¹², there are 10 of them, plus 3 more, so that's 10¹²³).

Well I would be the first to admit that Physics are not my forte. I have a degree in comparative theology with emphasis in ancient languages. However its evident that the calculations of Penrose are showing that the probability of universe being conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 ! The phrase "tremendously improbable" is wholly inadequate to describe this possibility.
Penroses own words;
“
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.”

Is that clear enough? Sorry thats just the way I see it, and think I am correct.

; }>

 

[yy2bggggs]

RevDisturba:

Penrose is using God as a metaphor. I myself use God as a metaphor. He's still talking about what he's talking about.

Penrose has the metaphorical god choosing a configuration from the set of all possible configurations of the universe from a phase space which links the configurations to their transitions from one state to the next state; the link can go in two directions--one of which we consider forwards in time, and the other backwards in time. His metaphorical creator is picking from this space of all possible configurations--effectively selecting some "path" of transitions through the universe. In random configurations, entropy gets greater whether you go one way in time or the other way. In our universe, it gets smaller as you go to the big bang.

To take Penrose's model for what it's worth and actually apply it to the universe would make about as much sense as stating that it really is possible for the universe to be exactly as it is, except for the sun swapped with a black hole. Nobody believes it really is possible, not even Penrose.

The fact that it's "common knowledge" only serves to illustrate that it has a common root. If you actually read Penrose's book, you'll see. The problem is, nobody "in philosophy circles" actually reads things. This is more equivalent to urban legend than scholarship.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not exactly. The 10¹²³ figure itself is a logarithm, but that's the nit picky part.

Whoops, yes, 10^10¹²³

 

[PixyMisa]

Penroses own words;
“
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.”

Is that clear enough?

No, not remotely.

You have presented a number. You have given no reference as to what this number means.

Sorry thats just the way I see it, and think I am correct.

You are - again - mistaken.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well it wasn't my work (I wish it was) Its many peoples work all PhDs and at the top of th their field. Here is some more supporting evdiences

All of which you have misunderstood.

Consider the odds of shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece. Is that the kind of event that led to the Big Bang? Is our universe an enormous reversal of entropy? Or is it-literally-a miracle?

Wheeler agrees with Hawking and Carter that our own universe is uniquely fine-tuned to produce life, even if in just one small, lost corner.

These tell us nothing.

The growth of the universe so close to the border between collapse and eternal expansion that man has not been able to measure, it has been just at the proper rate to allow galaxies and stars to form. "In fact" said Hawking "a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is quite unlikely. If one consider the possible constants and laws that could have emerged , the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense.

Tells us nothing.

At the 10'43 of a second of the Big Bang the flatness of the universe must have been precise to within one in 10'60. This makes the flatness parameter the most accurate number in all of physics and suggest a fine tuning of the universe, to set up conditions suitable for the emergence of stars, galaxies, and life of exquisite precision. If this were indeed a coincidence, then it would be a fluke so extraordinary as to make all other cosmic coincidences pale in insignificance. P. 26

Yes. This and other evidence gave us inflation theory. It's not that our Universe is unlikely. It's that if there weren't an early period of rapid inflation, our Universe would be unlikely.

The universe must be fine tuned to get enough nucleons, but also a precise number of electrons must exist. Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10-37 or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have so overcome the gravitational forces that galaxies, stars and planets never would have formed. One part in 10-37 is such an incredible balance that it is hard to visualize. P 115

Maybe one part in 10³⁷ is hard to visualise. But 0 isn't. Charge conservation explains this.

 

[Belz...]

Why yes, I think god belongs in the same category as math, music, justice, and freedom rather than with the easter bunny.

Except in the sense that those other things are known to exist, and god not ?

Were you being serious, there ?

Who's asking anyone to 'cater' to anything?

Well, above you said you consider god to be in the category of things we know exist. This is patently ridiculous. There's as much evidence for god as there is for the easter bunny. He's clearly in the category of things we DON'T know exist. But you seem to think I/we should give god a free pass.

 

[Belz...]

What makes you think I make it up as I go along? And what do you think I make up as I go along? I have been writing and posting for about ten years and saying the same thing so I think that you are either telling a lie (which you have a habit of doing)

See ? THIS is what I meant by "making stuff up". You just said I have a habit of lying. Since I actually DON'T lie, ever, this is pretty ridiculous. Of course, since you don't know me personally you wouldn't know this, but the fact of the matter is this means you've interpreted truth (or mistakes on my part) as lies.

or delusional

That, however, is possible.

, maybe both. Please show your evdience? Well I am sure you cant

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of "Be Civil & Polite" and Rule 10 removed.

.

Oh, no!! Darat, I wanted to see that!

Ever hear of the standard model of the big bang? No? Most children are taught that in the sixth grade now. It tells us that the universe began to exist one time.

Again, you're making stuff up. The big bang is a model for the early stages of THIS universe. We have no idea, and can't know, if there are other universes at this point. Ergo, we can't say (making stuff up) that it's a one-shot deal.

I did not take prob and stats. I don't have to for my argument.

Of course not. Why would you want to understand probabilities when talking about it ?

 

[Belz...]

That's right. Parts of it. In fact, very, very small parts of it.

Already, in some games, the detail is constructed only when looked at. We already know that the laws of physics explicitly only determine certain parameters when observed.

Yeah. But do you know why ?

But such a thing would be entirely unnecessary. All that's needed is to ensure that when someone looks at something, they find the information they expect.

Sure... but you'd still have to simulate everything everyone sees at any given time. That's the minimum complexity of the computer.

Yes, such a simulation would be complex and not something we could achieve with present technology - but it's something we can imagine being able to achieve with future technology.

I quite agree.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I would be suspicious if somebody were to roll fifty heads in a row, even though such an outcome were exactly as likely as any other outcome. I would speculate that there was some element present that biased the outcome in order to make such a thing possible.

But that's because you'd assume all things are NOT equal. Which, I guess, you'd be justified in doing in a non-controlled sequence of coin flips. But when we're talking about the universe, there is no other universe to compare it to, and therefore you have no reason to suspect foul play.

 

[Belz...]

We theists philosophers and christian lonely monks theologians from time immortal do have loads of circumstantial evdience to support the existence of God.

Not a shred of it.

 

[westprog]

Yeah. But do you know why ?

No, and nor does anyone else. That's another one of those "why" questions, isn't it?

Sure... but you'd still have to simulate everything everyone sees at any given time. That's the minimum complexity of the computer.

So we've gone from a computer (actually some kind of simulator, which might be a computer or it might be something entirely different) massively bigger than the entire universe to one that's probably just beyond our current technology but is something we can envisage. I'd call that a successful planning meeting, budget-wise.

I quite agree.

I suppose given a sufficiently long series of posts such a thing was bound to happen.

 

[westprog]

But that's because you'd assume all things are NOT equal. Which, I guess, you'd be justified in doing in a non-controlled sequence of coin flips. But when we're talking about the universe, there is no other universe to compare it to, and therefore you have no reason to suspect foul play.

It's the fact that there's no other universes to compare it to that leads one to be suspicious. This universe is like having only one lottery ticket sold, and it's a winner.

The multi-universe theory has its advantages, but I don't see how it could be considered a parsimonious solution. An infinite number of alternate universes, all completely undetectable, is a fairly heavy-handed way to explain a few anomalies about this universe.

 

[Beth]

Except in the sense that those other things are known to exist, and god not ?

Uh, no. Those things have no material substance. I don't know that any of those things can be said to exist in the sense you have been using the word.

Were you being serious, there ?

Yes.

Well, above you said you consider god to be in the category of things we know exist. This is patently ridiculous. There's as much evidence for god as there is for the easter bunny. He's clearly in the category of things we DON'T know exist. But you seem to think I/we should give god a free pass.

Odd. I agree with your statement that we don't know God exists. That's why I consider myself an agnostic. Why do you consider that a 'free pass'?

Perhaps you need to define how you are using the word 'exist' for the purpose of this conversation. Please explain how it is that you consider something like justice to exist while the easter bunny does not? Then it might be easier for me to understand why you classify god with the easter bunny rather than justice.