There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.
[post modified to remove several lines of plagiarized copyright material by mod. Go here for full text.]
[Roger Penrose:]
“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”
[Lennox:]
“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros."
[Penrose:]“number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
plagiarized (and I don't mean the quotes!) from a copyrighted source:
http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability...
That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God"
It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.
Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day.
Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote? Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?
Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it.
Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.
Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lenox and my responses.
To all of you on atheistrepublic, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it.
Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it.
* And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use.
If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are.
***
* Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator.
* And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe.
* And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg.
* And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang.
And I very much understand the physics. **You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.**
***
And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering.
* Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?
* Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism?
You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant.
Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power.
Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know.
***
Conclusion:
Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.
That statement is problematic, since the ratio between their strength is:
@PP Re: That entire jumbled, scrambled, incoherent attempted probability explanation
*deep exhausted sigh*.... Okay, I have said this many times before, but obviously you haven't been around to see it. Therefore, I suppose it ain't gonna kill me to explain this one more time....
So, while I suppose it is great and impressive that you have such a strong grasp on all these higher mathematics (or maybe you just PRETEND to understand, I don't know.), I have no problem admitting you might as well be talking in another language when you start spouting that stuff. Oh, sure, I can do some very basic calculus if I have a textbook handy to refresh my memory a bit here and there, but so what? Please tell me what in the unholy name of Sam Hickory Doodle does ANY of that have to do with my being an atheist??? Dude, I am not an Astrophysicist. I am not a Cosmologist. Nor am I a Biologists or a Mathematics Professor. What few things I do happen to know about science or math or any other related topics is pretty much learned for my own personal nerdy interests and/or its entertainment value. And guess what.... NONE of these things have anything to do with my being an atheist. So, once again, exactly WHAT are you attempting to prove by bringing in all these half-assed assertions and questionable "calculations" to an atheist forum? Sure, I like learning new things, but if I really wanted to have a lesson in probabilities, I would go buy a Probability textbook at the book store to go along with my trig, geometry, and calculus texts. As it is, Probabilities was never one of my favorite math disciplines. Hmmm.... Looking back, it is probably because I never understood the gravity of the probabilities. *scratching chin*
Apologies for the tardiness.
Yes, it is, and you are just about to prove it.
The chances of a creator existing would also be impossible without a creator creator.
The chances of us existing are 1 in 1, because we exist.
You can’t make claims about anything occurring outside our Universe, period. Special pleading aside.
You are assuming that that ratio can be anything other than what it is. There is no evidence that the values of any of the fundamental physical constants can be altered in any way. If there can be no other values for that ratio possible then the probability of that ratio takes on that value is again 1 in 1.
Even pure random chance is a better argument for the existence of the Universe than a creator. There may have been a near infinite number of universes that tried and failed to form and produce life until one came out just right
The fine-tuning argument is an argument AGAINST an omnipotent creator, not for, because any omnipotent creator could create and sustain life in a universe that was not tuned for it.
There is an enormous amount of empirical and observational evidence for the Big Bang.
The contents in your posts would tend to disagree.
Many do but they still have to use mathematics and physics to do their jobs.
When you stop using science and turn to creationism then you cease to deserve being called a ‘scientist’. Jason Lisle is a prime example.
And they still have to do science using science and not their beliefs in a higher power.
You would first have to prove that such a possibility exists. You would be the first person in history to achieve such a feat.
So take your ball and go home, we will discuss your ignorance without you.
Wow, that was brutal, true of course, but nonetheless brutal. I like the way he ran away before he had to face what was coming, but then blamed his leaving on you.
Christian Apologetics Alliance?
No wonder the OP sounded like a whiney-ass kid. And it is plagiarized from another whiney-ass kid.
Ain't you Absolutists figured it out yet. When is says "apologetics" in anything, it is absolutists who ain't got enough sense except make a bunch of whiney-ass pleas to tug at the "emotion" strings. No hard evidence, no hard truth.
rmfr
Still not a rebuttal. I suggest you read what I wrote to someone on here.
Besides what is wrong with copying an argument. People do it all the time.
Paul Pores: Besides what is wrong with copying an argument. People do it all the time.
======================================================
It becomes plagiarism when you do not acknowledge the source. At least I acknowledge the source when I "steal" it from another source other than mine own synthesis and paraphrase. And even then I may acknowledge that I synthesized or paraphrased it.
rmfr
Paul Pores: Still not a rebuttal. I suggest you read what I wrote to someone on here.
================================================
I did read what you wrote. I also compared it to what you plagiarized after seeing Nyarlathotep's response. Thus the only rebuttal needed was what I responded with...
rmfr
"Besides what is wrong with copying an argument. "
Well if it is a sound argument it would help. All they're doing is pointing to the material universe and at organic life and insisting it couldn't have happened without an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition using magic.
Have you or they ever heard of Occam's razor?
Their claim also has no explanatory powers at all, you might as easily insist pixies did it and it would be no less valid. They're using a god of the gaps polemic, and you don't appear to understand why that is logically fallacious. Even if it weren't fallacious mumbo jumbo it would no more evidence Jesus than it does Zeus, another salient flaw your religious gurus seem to have entirely missed.
Basically Penrose is fixing the universe to the size of the observable universe, then arguing that the entire universe could have been a huge single black hole (with a massive amount of entropy = A).
Then pointing out that what we see is very different (with a much "lower" amount of entropy = B).
Then saying that B/A = 10^(10^(-123)) (a very small number) is the probability of selecting a starting point that would reproduce our universe.
For anyone who didn't fall asleep by my previous post. Calculating probably that way is known as the naive definition of probability. In short it is assumption that all outcomes are equally likely. It is like saying:
I want to drive to the store. During my drive I will either die to some terrible accident or I won't die to some horrible accident. Therefore there is a 50% chance I will die. Go to the dumbest person you know and present them with that scenario and I bet even they will realize something ain't quite right with that analysis.
Let us suppose that we accept that the universe is somehow extremely highly improbable, even to the point of vanishingly small in likelihood. The conclusion, to those who want to aim their conclusion to a particular end point, is that the universe must have had a creator. If that is the case, it really is a misunderstanding of the maths. A tiny, vanishingly small probability is nevertheless greater than zero, so it is * not a must *, that a creator has to be responsible. The discussion could go, that to a very small probability, the universe could be the way it is without a designer, and arrived at by purely natural processes.
Furthermore, the mathematics does not tell us what that creator must be, in fact it gives us no clue as to the nature of the creator, (designer). It simply supposedly supports the idea of some kind of designer that can design. Of course that is a tautology. If there must be a designer, then the designer must be able to design, (as well as carry out the process of manufacture - whatever that might be). There is nothing logically or philosophically wrong with proposing that the designer did not make the universe - it could have been a pair or a group effort - who knows ?
However, if the multiverse theory is correct, then probabilities are not a problem. If there really are an infinite number of universes, all derived from purely natural processes, and each with their own peculiar properties, then amongst them will be this one. In that light, then this universe is inevitable.
I think that the OP and its content gets us nowhere in deciding that (a) there has to have been a designer of the universe, and (b) it has to be anybody's particular pet god that is that designer. If there was a designer, then any designer that can fit the bill may have been responsible. If one wants to put forward that one or more of the gods which humans have or still do recognise and worship, are responsible, then there are other good reasons to think that such gods do not exist.
Deistically speaking, if a god, (however one might define or envision it), made the universe, it is not logically or probabalistically impossible, that the said god no longer exists, even though it originally made the universe. If that were the case, it is not any of the Abrahamic gods.
Best wishes,
Mu.
Another issue here.
We're told what parameters need to be met to create this universe, and then told god "had" to do this and god "had to do that. In other words, there are "laws of physics" that even god must obey. That would make these laws "above" god.
If this god is truly omnipotent he can make *any* universe with *any* parameters he likes. God could make this universe with gravity that is 1000x stronger, but still look and function exactly as it is right now. If he cannot do that, he not omnipotent, and there are laws that even he is subjected to, and therefore above him.
Which in turn means that talking about what parameters the universe "must" have is totally pointless.
Even when I was Christian I would have said this, and said that using this kind of "proof" for creation was pretty dumb.
So someone has a theory, that's nice - supporting evidence?
Also the bit about God poking pins in space whatever to create a universe, where the fuck is space and time before there is a universe?
Did you not read the title... sigh.
He was talking about phase space, not physical space. Think of a piece of graph paper representing all the possible attributes a system might have, and a curve drawn across the paper marking the actual attributes of the system. The curve would be the state of a system and the paper would be the phase space.
Why do we go to such extremes to deal with these attributes? Since phase space is formulated like regular old space (like your room) you can use the tools of geometry, trigonometry, and calculus to work with it. Which makes this otherwise crazy method; very attractive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/e Confusing space (like your room) and phase space(like the example above) is normal and it doesn't help that scientists and mathematicians refer to both as space (and the elements of that space) in the same conversation! In fact I noticed I did it in my previous post:
Starting point is a reference to phase space, while the universe is of course related to physical space.
All just a bunch of imagining shit Iin your head cloaked behind some speciised scientific jargon to make it sound legit.
Might as well just imagine a drawing pictures in your head with an imaginary crayon.
Guess I wasted my time.
History has shown that theorising about God/s using scientific methods is a waste of time and resources and effort.
So yes you wasted your time.
I just tried to explain (and perhaps failed, it is not an easy task) the difference between physical space and phase space.
I've been trying to think of a simple example of phase space, and I finally came up with one.
Most of us have probably seen this "political compass". When you fill out the survey it gives you a point somewhere on this graph. Drawing a line from the center to this point would create a vector (English: an arrow). If we postulated that this represented everything that could be known about you politically (a pretty ludicrous assumption, but we need this for the example so bear with me) then it would allow us to directly compare one persons results (arrow) with any other result (arrow) by projecting the first result onto the second; with the result just being a scalar (English: number) that describes how much the first person has in common with the second person politically.
You might notice that none of this has anything to do with physical space in the world.
"God" does not qualify as a theory, nevermind something that could be falsified.
Paul Pores: "the theory that a God exists."
There is no "Theory that God exists." Do you have any idea at all what a theory is? At best, the "God Exists assertion is a hypothesis." A theory must have facts supporting it and it must be falsifiable. The god idea has neither.
All you have done is assert a "God of the Gaps" scenario where you assert a God exists without evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. "Hitchen's Razor."
It appears that this is mostly speculation dealing with subjects that no one has a good grip on. Then God is added! Isn't that the error known as "argument from ignorance?" Has this argument convinced the noted physicist Sean Carroll? I don't see atheists losing any sleep over this one!
I'm an uneducated duffer when it comes to probability theory. So I have a question. I'll start with what appear to be two unequivocal facts. Firstly the material universe exists, secondly life and all natural phenomena exist.
Now my question, how does adding unexplained magic by an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition make the presence of life in the material universe more probable than life originating from that material universe by a natural process as yet unknown?
The first is adding claims that are unevidenced and unnecessary and have no explanatory powers at all. The second is using two established facts? It also has the advantage that every explanation we have is a natural material explanation. Not once has anyone evidenced a supernatural explanation for anything. No one can even properly define the term supernatural.
@PP
Re: " There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe."
What "theory"? It's a working hypothesis at best - one that hasn't even managed to make it to a null hypothesis despite having millennia to do it. For a scientific equivalent, think phrenology.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Instead rambling off some probabilities, how about providing proof that your god exists. Is this the most powerful argument to prove that the most powerful entity in this universe exists? A dartboard? Do you really bend your knee to something that has a probability it may or MAY NOT exist? I do not walk across an intersection until I am satisfied 100% that it is safe to proceed. You bend your knee to something that does not possess that 100% certainty.
How about this theory?
"I can plagiarize, therefore god exists."
Pages