The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

pajo1981

hinault wrote: »

There is zero evidence for your contention about multiple universes being created.e.

And there is zero evidence to support your contention that magic man created the universe.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

The evidence shows that the universe is fine tuned. That is evidence that we see before us. I listed how precise just one part of that fine tuning is.

There is zero evidence for your contention about multiple universes being created.

So expand your mind to try to comprehend the evidence that is there, and not waste time speculating about hypotheses which are based on zero evidence.

The evidence shows that the universe is in a particular state.

We are able to determine that if the nature of some specific thing within the universe were slightly different then the universe would not exist as we currently see it.

Using words like fine tuning and precision is just you trying to make it fit your pre-existing belief that a supreme being must have done it as those word suggest an outside influence. Just because a change in one of the variables would mean this universe wouldn't exist does not prove that some intelligence therefore created it.

All that proves is that we are able to measure stuff, not that something else created stuff.

Leroy42

Hinault, you seem to be asserting that the precision of the universe leads to the conclusion that intelligence was involved, and you state the gravitational constant as being clear proof of that.

But, in as far as we know, a change in the gravitational constant would not lead to no universe, although of course it would lead to a very different universe that we know. It would simply lead to a different universe.

When was the GC created? For your theory to be correct, the constant must have eternally existed. It cannot have come into existence either after or at the same time as the creation of the universe as then the universe is not reliant on it for its existence, only for its form.

Even putting that aside, what makes you sure that this universe is precise? Are you using the fact that we exist as the determining factor? Because I am sure the the dinosaurs who roamed the earth for 130m years, as opposed to our short of 300k, if they were intelligent enough to ponder, would have assumed that the universe was created perfectly for them. The earth, since they existed for 130m, would appear to have been perfect for them. Plants, air, water, sun etc. But it turns out the universe was not precise enough to not have them wiped out.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:
They're a consequence of fine tuning.

What you describe is the life cycle of stars. It's not chaos.
Besides if everything created didn't die, how cluttered would the Universe be?

Why does it need fine tuning if your perfect "god" made the perfect universe?

hinault

robinph wrote: »

The evidence shows that the universe is in a particular state.

We are able to determine that if the nature of some specific thing within the universe were slightly different then the universe would not exist as we currently see it.

Using words like fine tuning and precision is just you trying to make it fit your pre-existing belief that a supreme being must have done it as those word suggest an outside influence. Just because a change in one of the variables would mean this universe wouldn't exist does not prove that some intelligence therefore created it.

All that proves is that we are able to measure stuff, not that something else created stuff.

You fail to consider the scale required upon which the existence of the entire Universe is predicated.

I took one measurement on that scale. Let's consider the scale again.

The diameter of the entire Universe. It is difficult to comprehend such a distance. It's estimated that it's diameter is 93 Billion light years. If the gravitational force required to create and sustain the universe is one spot on that 93 billion light year scale - change in either direction of greater than one inch on that 93 billion light year scale would prevent this universe from existing.

That level of scale, and that level of order, does not come around by chance.
Instead that scale and that precision proves fine tuning to the extent that none of us can actually comprehend, much less engineer.

The complexity of the entire creation - from celestial creation to the creation of humanity, flora, fauna, wildlife - is mind boggling when considered.

That complexity is designed.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hinault, you seem to be asserting that the precision of the universe leads to the conclusion that intelligence was involved, and you state the gravitational constant as being clear proof of that.

But, in as far as we know, a change in the gravitational constant would not lead to no universe, although of course it would lead to a very different universe that we know. It would simply lead to a different universe.

Would it? Says who?

It therefore falls to you to tell us what Universe would exist instead, if the gravitational constant is altered by greater than one inch in this Universe.

Harika

hinault wrote: »

Would it? Says who?

It therefore falls to you to tell us what Universe would exist instead, if the gravitational constant altered by greater than one inch in this Universe.

You have a small issue with this, this constant is changing all the time, so kicks the assumption that it is balanced out of the window.
http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Would it? Says who?

It therefore falls to you to tell us what Universe would exist instead, if the gravitational constant is altered by greater than one inch in this Universe.

Ok you're right, I phrased that wrong. I should have said it could lead to a different type of universe. However, based on our knowledge of GC, it would seem that the GC is a determinant as to the outcome of the universe (the planets forming due to collisions, our Solar system being held in the manner it is due to the gravitational relationships etc) but to claim that any other type of GC would render even the existence of any universe as impossible? I just don't see how you can make that claim.

So what is your opinion of when the gravitational constant came into being? Was it before, or after the universe was came into existence? This really is fundamental as to whether a universe can exist without it. If you don't have a clear view on this then how can anyone say what the impact of a different GC would have on the universe.

And you completely avoid answering the other part of my post. What makes you so certain that the universe is precise. Surely the dinosaurs thought the same during their 130m years on the planet.

Most of the universe we cannot even see. Most of the parts that we can see we can never get too, and most of the parts that we can get too are not viable to us. Even in our own planet, the vast majority of it is not useful to us unless we adapt to it. Many of the things within the planet are extremely dangerous to us. That is even before we get into the massive limitations humans themselves have. We can't fly, or swim under water so any useful amount of time. We are pretty defenceless against germs and bacteria, even the sun can kill us.

For such a precise creation is leaves a lot to be desired

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

Life exists in this Universe because the Universe is highly ordered to such a degree that the human mind can barely comprehend it's precision, and to such a degree that humanity could never possibly hope to engineer.

One problem for Evolutionists is their inability to justify how the precision of the Universe that we know occurs.

If evolution a philosophy now? I don't believe "Evolutionists" to be a valid term.

Evolution has nothing to do with the fundamental laws of the universe.

Have you considered that the apparent precision of the universe is irrelevant to its existence but is fundamental to its nature?

I don't believe that you have considered the evidence.

I believe you've considers the evidence and come to the wrong conclusion.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

That complexity is designed.

Measuring something and finding that it is big and complex does not prove anything other than that it is big and complex.

You need to provide evidence of design other than your mind being boggled by the concept.



Using nothing other than the information you can see in the picture can you determine if the cards were dropped from a height or specifically placed in this exact pattern?
http://www.xenmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/7dbf7d8ca3091bf80b02c04df6e0bb58.jpg

The only thing that you can say is that they were in that position. Nothing about how they got there. Unless you ask the photographer.

hinault

Brian? wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with the fundamental laws of the universe.

:rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Exactly how we feel everytime you use the "god" did it cop out reply.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ok you're right, I phrased that wrong. I should have said it could lead to a different type of universe. However, based on our knowledge of GC, it would seem that the GC is a determinant as to the outcome of the universe (the planets forming due to collisions, our Solar system being held in the manner it is due to the gravitational relationships etc) but to claim that any other type of GC would render even the existence of any universe as impossible? I just don't see how you can make that claim.

I didn't make the claim bolded.

You made the claim that another universe could exist using a different gravitational constant.

It's up to you to prove what you claim in that regard.

hinault

robinph wrote: »

Measuring something and finding that it is big and complex does not prove anything other than that it is big and complex.

You need to provide evidence of design other than your mind being boggled by the concept.

The design is highly ordered and infinitely complex. Ordered and complex to a degree that really cannot be fathomed and measured, much less engineered by man.

You accept that the design evidence is highly ordered and infinitely complex?
If so, how did this order and complexity materialise?

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

I didn't make the claim bolded.

You made the claim that another universe could exist using a different gravitational constant.

It's up to you to prove what you claim in that regard.

I said "could", I can't prove it as I didn't state it as a truth. You, on the other hand, claim that the precise nature of the GC proves that that universe could not have come come into existence without intervention and I, and others, are saying that all it does it show that this universe requires it, not any universe.

Have I claimed that a universe could not exist without the GC? No. I merely made the point that a change in GC does not limit the possibility of the existence of a universe.

It is you that made the initial claim. I have given you possible scenarios, as have others, such as the playing cards, yet you have offered nothing except that the universe exists, therefore that proves the universe was created.

So again, what is your opinion on when GC came into existence. Was it before, during or after the universe was created.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes could, I can't prove it as I didn't state it as a truth. You, on the other hand, claim that the precise nature of the GC proves that that universe could not have come come into existence and I, and others, are saying that all it does it show that this universe requires it, not any universe.

That's not what I claimed.

Why do you persist in trying to misrepresent what I posted?

To be clear once again. I said that the precision of the universe is exemplified by the GC.

I said how even a minute deviation of greater than one inch in either direction on a scale of 3,480,708,378,264,230,000,000,000,000 inches in that constant would render the end of the universe and render the end of every single thing contained within the universe.

You accept that the universe is highly ordered and infinitely complex?

hinault

Leroy42 wrote:

Yes could, I can't prove it as I didn't state it as a truth. You, on the other hand, claim that the precise nature of the GC proves that that universe could not have come come into existence and I, and others, are saying that all it does it show that this universe requires it, not any universe.

Hinault wrote:

I didn't make the claim bolded.

You made the claim that another universe could exist using a different gravitational constant.

It's up to you to prove what you claim in that regard.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I said "could", I can't prove it.

OK

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I'm stunned. How could I have been so wrong? That single emoji makes it clear that evolution is a branch of physics after all.

hinault

Brian? wrote: »

I'm stunned. How could I have been so wrong? That single emoji makes it clear that evolution is a branch of physics after all.

I'd spell it out for you, but you don't possess the capacity to understand.

Jog on.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

That's not what I claimed.

Why do you persist in trying to misrepresent what I posted?

To be clear once again. I said that the precision of the universe is exemplified by the GC.

I said how even a minute deviation of greater than one inch in either direction on a scale of 3,480,708,378,264,230,000,000,000,000 inches in that constant would render the end of the universe and render the end of every single thing contained within the universe.

You accept that the universe is highly ordered and infinitely complex?

Apologies Hinault, I am not trying to misrepresent what you said, maybe I misunderstood.

Based on what you said above, you seem to be suggesting that a deviation in the GC would render the end of the universe. My understanding on that point is that you are making the point that this is so precise that the universe can't simply have happened by accident, and by extension it must be designed. And by extension, if the GC was not so precise the universe won't not exist. Are you then suggesting that you accept that that only covers the form of this universe, not that no universe could exist.

I am not sure if it is highly ordered and I certainly don't think it is infinitely complex. It does appear to be highly ordered, but only in so much as things seem to work. But since I have no unordered universe to compare it against, or indeed and better organised one it really isn't possible to judge either way.

In terms of the infinitely complex, again it certainly appears at this moment to be so. Again, and you still haven't addressed this, a deck of cards landing on the floor seems complex. A snowflake seem complex. Complex does not indicate intelligence. It indicates that we don't understand it.

But neither of these two bring us any closer to your position on there having to be a God.

And now that I have, or at least attempted to, answer your question how about mine.

When do you think GC came into existence. Was it before, during or after the universe was created

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apologies Hinault, I am not trying to misrepresent what you said, maybe I misunderstood.

Based on what you said above, you seem to be suggesting that a deviation in the GC would render the end of the universe. My understanding on that point is that you are making the point that this is so precise that the universe can't simply have happened by accident, and by extension it must be designed. And by extension, if the GC was not so precise the universe won't not exist.

That's a correct summation of what I posted.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are you then suggesting that you accept that that only covers the form of this universe, not that no universe could exist.

Well it certainly cover the form of this universe.

In terms of no universe existing? This universe would not exist whether another universe could exist using different constants? I don't know.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not sure if it is highly ordered and I certainly don't think it is infinitely complex. It does appear to be highly ordered, but only in so much as things seem to work. But since I have no unordered universe to compare it against, or indeed and better organised one it really isn't possible to judge either way.

If the universe is not highly ordered and infinitely complex, it must therefore be disordered and simple. Right?

If the universe is simple, why then are scientific theories as to universe's creation and operation replaced, discarded, tweeked?

Leroy42 wrote: »

When do you think GC came into existence. Was it before, during or after the universe was created

I've no idea when GC came in to existence.

At a guess GC must have come in to existence when the Universe came in to being. But that's a guess.

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

I'd spell it out for you, but you don't possess the capacity to understand.

Jog on.

You could try me.

You'd surprised with the capacity I have for understanding.

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

That's a correct summation of what I posted.



Well it certainly cover the form of this universe.

In terms of no universe existing? This universe would not exist whether another universe could exist using different constants? I don't know.



If the universe is not highly ordered and infinitely complex, it must therefore be disordered and simple. Right?

If the universe is simple, why then are scientific theories as to universe's creation and operation replaced, discarded, tweeked?



I've no idea when GC came in to existence.

At a guess GC must have come in to existence when the Universe came in to being. But that's a guess.

i think the universe is so complex it's impossible to say it's highly ordered. You see order at a macro scale because constants exist. However you're missing the granularity of the universe by applying too high level thinking to it.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

Measuring something and finding that it is big and complex does not prove anything other than that it is big and complex.

You need to provide evidence of design other than your mind being boggled by the concept.

The design is highly ordered and infinitely complex. Ordered and complex to a degree that really cannot be fathomed and measured, much less engineered by man.

You accept that the design evidence is highly ordered and infinitely complex?
If so, how did this order and complexity materialise?

For the umpteenth time, something being big or complex does not in any way whatsoever suggest design.

pajo1981

Here is a complex image. It was generated entirely by a computer algorithm. The algorithm parameters were chosen at random. If those parameters are changed even slightly, the image will look completely different. The image was created systemically. No being had any part in its design.

The parameters that describe the universe are not fixed. The universe may well collapse on itself and come back based on different parameters. It may do this for eternity. Some parameter may result in life, some may not. Right now we have measured some of those parameters and concluded, if they were slightly different things would not be as they are now. That is all.

Also, as has been mentioned, if the universe was designed, what does that even mean? I you think about it it is an utterly absurd notion. Where does the designer come from? What are they exactly? If the universe needs to be 'designed', who designed the designer?

Absolam

pajo1981 wrote: »

The image was created systemically. No being had any part in its design.

Didn't a being create the system that designed it? Making the being responsible for the design, since without creating the system, there could have been no design. No?

Peregrinus

What Ab said. The design came into being because of the systematic application of an algorithm. The parameters of the algorithm may have been randomly generated but the algorithm itself, I assume, was not. Plus, the decision to apply it systematically must have been taken and implemented by someone, no? Neither the image itself nor the rules which gave rise to it spontaneously generated ex nihilo.

None of which is necessarily to endorse hinault's views. It's just that I don't think this is a particularly compelling refutation of them.

Absolam

Agreed. That we are able to create complex things does not imply that all complex things are created.

pajo1981

Absolam wrote: »

Didn't a being create the system that designed it? Making the being responsible for the design, since without creating the system, there could have been no design. No?

A being did not create the system. The system always existed. In this instance a being was required to implement the system, so that we could observe its outcome.

The system here (fractals) always existed. just as the system responsible for the universe just exists.

Absolam

pajo1981 wrote: »

A being did not create the system. The system always existed. In this instance a being was required to implement the system, so that we could observe its outcome.
The system here (fractals) always existed. just as the system responsible for the universe just exists.

I don't think so? The system in your example is an algorithm running on a piece of hardware, which created the image you presented. That image didn't exist before it was created. A fractal system is an altogether more substantial thing than the fractal image you presented.