'Matter is designed' argument for GOD...

Page 2 of 5 [ 67 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

03 Jul 2016, 10:10 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

Fnord wrote:

1. Not.

2. The question assumes that there is one argument that all Athiests share. For example, there is one speculation among many that randomness is inherent in the creation of the universe as we know it. That is, there may have been an infinite number of values for the physical constants, with only a small percentage of those combinations that result in a stable, expanding universe like our own. Other combinations would result in a universe that fails to coalesce matter, resulting in a universe containing only energy; or a universe in which all of the energy immediately coalesces into matter, resulting in a universe contained in an infinitely dense black hole; or a universe in which the gravity constant is insufficiently high for hydrogen atoms to compress and fuse to form helium, resulting in a universe full of nothing but hydrogen atoms in various states of non-degenerate compression.

At the bottom of it all is the reason that our universe was created is unknown. Thus, the reason why our universe has remained stable for ~13.7x10^9 years is also unknown, and "Why" is irrelevant. Our universe simply exists, and that's all that matters, except to philosophers, theologians, and dreamers ... and the existence of God is not proven.

I failed to be clear. What if you simply look at matter?

Baryonic or hadronic?

LoveNotHate wrote:

We have names for how matter functions: forces, fields, orientations, spin, charge, attraction, repulsion, bonding ... Do you see pure randomness as the cause of why makes matter functions the way it does, or perhaps the hands of a higher intelligence?

I see a random set of characteristics that just happen to work together.

LoveNotHate wrote:

How does the "random creation" argument hold up if String theory shows matter is actually connected across universes and dimensions?

"IF" - subjunctive reasoning is for philosophers, conspiracy theorists, and people who do not understand the Scientific Method, which involves starting with an observation, not a conclusion. You have started with a conclusion, and are now seeking "proof" that your conclusion is valid - this is not science, it is religion. Never try to conflate the two.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

03 Jul 2016, 10:33 am

GGPViper wrote:

LoveNotHate wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

No amount of intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading and cherry-picked quotations is going to change that...

You twice accused me of "intellectually dishonesty" yet you failed to explain yourself.

You don't seem to know anything about this topic.

Please don't waste people's time if you can't explain yourself.

You dig up old posts of mine to what ? Smear me?

Sure at first people disagree, but then I went through the long and painstaking process of explaining.

I actually spent a tremendous amount of time educating people in those other topics. Just like I spent a lot of effort so far in this one.

You seem to fancy yourself as someone that knows fallacies. Yet, you cite unrelated topics, make ad hominem insinuations, you don't even appear to understand this topic, and you have made four posts in this topic, and contributed nothing to the discussion.

BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

03 Jul 2016, 10:52 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

I believe in a higher intelligence "God", because of the physical order of matter. Not a personal GOD, more like matter is "God goo" that comes from some higher intelligence.

Theoretical physicists Einstein and Kuku make the same argument ...

Albert Einstein: " He said the Universe could have been chaotic, random and ugly—and yet we have this gorgeous synthesis at the origin of the Universe itself, giving birth to the galaxies, the planets, DNA, life. Einstein said that the harmony he sees could not have been an accident".
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/w ... -not-blush

Michio Kaku (co-founder of 'String Theory'): "God is the GOD of order". "God is a mathematician". "God is a musician". The strings vibrate throughout galaxies/universes/dimensions.
source: Youtube Big Think videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmkrI-K7yBo

NOTE: I omitted a lot of science and just left it as a superficial argument.

Questions:
1. Do you find this argument appealing or not?

2. Won't the atheist argument that matter randomly formed become much less believable in view of modern physics? Especially, if string theory gives us math that shows us how matter works and functions across many galaxies/universes/dimensions?

Kaku is NOT the founder of String Theory. Ed Witten, the Fields Medal Recipient for mathematics is.

Kaku lays it on thick with a trowel. He is the most annoying science presenter since Carl Sagan and his Billyuns and Billyuns, and Stuhr-Stuff.

The best science presents currently on t.v. are Neil De Grasse Tyson, Jim Alkalil (BBC) and Brian Cox (BBC). They are also first rate scientists when not on camera.

_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

03 Jul 2016, 11:00 am

BaalChatzaf wrote:

LoveNotHate wrote:

mikeman7918 wrote:

Einstein also believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, stating that "God does not play dice with the universe", yet quantum mechanics is still a thing. .

Many of the quantum models permit determinism ("God Does not play dice"), for example, the "Broglie–Bohm theory".

"Interpretations of quantum mechanics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... pretations

The De Broglie Bohm theory is not compatible with Special Relativity, which is why most physicists do not accept it. It also does not fit in with quantum field theory.

Interesting.

My understanding that so far physicists have not disproven hidden non-local variables.

"any deterministic hidden-variable theory which is consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

So, are there any compatible models in which the apparent indeterminism is explained by hidden non-local variables?

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

03 Jul 2016, 11:01 am

BaalChatzaf wrote:

LoveNotHate wrote:

He calls himself the co-founder of "string field theory".

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

03 Jul 2016, 11:01 am

People should never try to use science in an attempt to "prove" the existence of God, nor use the Bible to "prove" science wrong (it doesn't even present the correct value for Pi).

BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

03 Jul 2016, 11:08 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

He calls himself the co-founder of "string field theory".

Total BS. It does not surprise me, that he made such a claim. Look here for a history of the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History

_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

03 Jul 2016, 11:15 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

He calls himself the co-founder of "string field theory".

Kuku is a good marketer. He is building up a reputation as a genius physicist.

I've seen him on several tv commericals, like HR Block.
see here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WNlWyFgLCg

I cited him, because he's influenced by Einstein, so his statements about order are akin to Einstein's "God".

I think of "God" the same way: as the original force progenitor of the order of matter.

BaalChatzaf wrote:

Total BS. It does not surprise me, that he made such a claim. Look here for a history of the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History

Let me find you the video in which he actually says it.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

03 Jul 2016, 11:57 am

BaalChatzaf wrote:

Total BS. It does not surprise me, that he made such a claim. Look here for a history of the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History

He says it in an interview at time 4:30 - 4:50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6MxeV0GE94

However, this physics website also says, "He co-founded string field theory".
https://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/ ... s/kaku.cfm

L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

03 Jul 2016, 2:14 pm

I generally term myself as an atheist, though that's mainly because I don't believe in God the way that Western religion generally defines it. If you want to see God as the universe itself or as your higher self, that makes a lot more sense to me, compared to a sky daddy with a long white beard.

I also think it makes more sense to say that the universe itself has intelligence, rather than that it was created by an intelligent being. But I don't really like referring to it as God because that usually evokes images of the intelligent creator, separate from the creation, that I think is completely silly.

_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

03 Jul 2016, 3:07 pm

Love Not Hate,

GGPViper is not completely correct. There is a much stronger argument from design known as the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0

Although the ideas of Behe and Dembski are outdated, I think that the argument for design in terms of the life authorizing perimeters of the universe is a much more robust look at the teleological argument for the existence of God.

As a doctorate student in theoretical physics (specializing in Cosmology) myself, it, along with the Kalam, are the strongest argument(s) for the existence of God.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Jul 2016, 3:55 pm

Deltaville wrote:

Please provide an empirically testable hypothesis based on the theory of a fine-tuned universe.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

03 Jul 2016, 4:02 pm

GGPViper wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

Please provide an empirically testable hypothesis based on the theory of a fine-tuned universe.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4647v1.pdf

It is *possible* that fine tuning supports the notion of a supernatural creator:

https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2 ... ys-part-1/

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Jul 2016, 4:13 pm

Deltaville wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

Please provide an empirically testable hypothesis based on the theory of a fine-tuned universe.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4647v1.pdf

It is *possible* that fine tuning supports the notion of a supernatural creator:

https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2 ... ys-part-1/

Where is the empirically testable hypothesis?

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

03 Jul 2016, 4:26 pm

GGPViper wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

Please provide an empirically testable hypothesis based on the theory of a fine-tuned universe.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4647v1.pdf

It is *possible* that fine tuning supports the notion of a supernatural creator:

https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2 ... ys-part-1/

Where is the empirically testable hypothesis?

The 'empirical evidence' for fine tuning is found on the first article. The second article provides a bayesian framework on interpretation of the FTA.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Jul 2016, 4:55 pm

Deltaville wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

Please provide an empirically testable hypothesis based on the theory of a fine-tuned universe.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4647v1.pdf

It is *possible* that fine tuning supports the notion of a supernatural creator:

https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2 ... ys-part-1/

Where is the empirically testable hypothesis?

The 'empirical evidence' for fine tuning is found on the first article. The second article provides a bayesian framework on interpretation of the FTA.

Then please quote the relevant section from the 76-page article demonstrating the empirical evidence...

And when doing so, please simultaneously explain your claim in view of the following statement from the abstract:

Barnes (2011 wrote:

I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the ne-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

Page 2 of 5 [ 67 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

'Matter is designed' argument for GOD... Post Reply New Topic

'Matter is designed' argument for GOD...