-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
The Elshamah mega-thread
- Thread starter Elshamah
- Start date
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
The scientific consensus today is that the universe had a beginning. Either it had a cause, or it did not. What makes more sense to you ?
https://vimeo.com/96489508#at=2
he_who_is_nobody said:
The scientific consensus today is that the universe had a beginning. Either it had a cause, or it did not. What makes more sense to you ?
https://vimeo.com/96489508#at=2
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Greetings,
The "Big Bang" wasn't the beginning of everything.
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
Our space-time "bubble" is only our part of the universe - not all of it.Elshamah said:
The "Big Bang" wasn't the beginning of everything.
Kindest regards,
James
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Much equivocation of "beginning" is centred around a concept of when time began. That is only because we have a particular sense for time. It does not make sense for us to allocate "time" to an immaterial space. But that produces the conundrum of what constitutes an immaterial space: that is, is it really possible there ever can be nothing?
You would need to know when a "cause" was needed, and know our "beginning" was quite separate from continuum of of events beyond our present knowledge.Elshamah said:
Much equivocation of "beginning" is centred around a concept of when time began. That is only because we have a particular sense for time. It does not make sense for us to allocate "time" to an immaterial space. But that produces the conundrum of what constitutes an immaterial space: that is, is it really possible there ever can be nothing?
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Why does the universe need a cause? You already believe that there is a thing that exists that doesn't have a cause, your god, so why does the universe need a cause? You also believe in a infinite being, your god again, so why can't there be an infinite series of universes simultaneously beginning and ending in a continuous process? Oh, right, there is a GAP in our knowledge, and in order to fill that GAP we need to stuff GOD inside it. Gotta love that SPECIAL feeling when god PLEADS with us humans to listen...
Why does the universe need a cause? You already believe that there is a thing that exists that doesn't have a cause, your god, so why does the universe need a cause? You also believe in a infinite being, your god again, so why can't there be an infinite series of universes simultaneously beginning and ending in a continuous process? Oh, right, there is a GAP in our knowledge, and in order to fill that GAP we need to stuff GOD inside it. Gotta love that SPECIAL feeling when god PLEADS with us humans to listen...
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Oh, my mistake. I forgot I was dealing with a bot. I must have said some key words that brought this auto-response out. This auto-response from the bot has nothing to do with my comment. I guess I will go back to ignoring the bot.
Elshamah said:
Oh, my mistake. I forgot I was dealing with a bot. I must have said some key words that brought this auto-response out. This auto-response from the bot has nothing to do with my comment. I guess I will go back to ignoring the bot.
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Time without a beginning is not possible. The big bang theory states that time was created at bhe Big bang.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2049-you-will-not-live-an-eternity?highlight=eternity
As we've done our little mind experiment here, our experiment in thinking and reflection on the nature of eternity and how one gets there, we realized that you can't really get to eternity by adding events together, one upon another. Because at every point you still have a finite number, even though it is much larger than it used to be. In other words, time proceeds forward as one event is added to another and that time that proceeds forward is always a finite amount of time. Do you see that? Now if you grasp that, and it's not really as hard as it may seem at first, I am just simply saying that when you count numbers are potentially infinite, but you can never count to infinity because you can't get there by adding one number after another because at any point in your count you are still dealing with a finite number. The same applies to events in time Which means with regards to your eternity, though you will live forever and ever, you will never live for an eternity. Because you cannot accomplish an eternity by adding one event upon another.
Now this has very significant applications for the concept of the existence of God. It's really quite simple. Our little experiment took us from the present into the future. We realize that we can never get to an infinite period of time in the future by adding individual events together. But today, this point of time in the present, is a point of time future to all past. Correct? In other words, we are future to yesterday, and the day before that. Now, some have suggested that the universe is eternal. That it has existed forever. But it is not possible that it has existed forever. Here is the application. This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past. We just agreed that you cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is not infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time. Only a finite number of events. Which means the universe is not eternal. Which means the universe has not existed forever and ever with no beginning, but it in fact had a beginning.
Dragan Glas said:
Time without a beginning is not possible. The big bang theory states that time was created at bhe Big bang.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2049-you-will-not-live-an-eternity?highlight=eternity
As we've done our little mind experiment here, our experiment in thinking and reflection on the nature of eternity and how one gets there, we realized that you can't really get to eternity by adding events together, one upon another. Because at every point you still have a finite number, even though it is much larger than it used to be. In other words, time proceeds forward as one event is added to another and that time that proceeds forward is always a finite amount of time. Do you see that? Now if you grasp that, and it's not really as hard as it may seem at first, I am just simply saying that when you count numbers are potentially infinite, but you can never count to infinity because you can't get there by adding one number after another because at any point in your count you are still dealing with a finite number. The same applies to events in time Which means with regards to your eternity, though you will live forever and ever, you will never live for an eternity. Because you cannot accomplish an eternity by adding one event upon another.
Now this has very significant applications for the concept of the existence of God. It's really quite simple. Our little experiment took us from the present into the future. We realize that we can never get to an infinite period of time in the future by adding individual events together. But today, this point of time in the present, is a point of time future to all past. Correct? In other words, we are future to yesterday, and the day before that. Now, some have suggested that the universe is eternal. That it has existed forever. But it is not possible that it has existed forever. Here is the application. This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past. We just agreed that you cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is not infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time. Only a finite number of events. Which means the universe is not eternal. Which means the universe has not existed forever and ever with no beginning, but it in fact had a beginning.
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
5 Easy Steps to refute Atheism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-5-easy-steps-to-destroy-atheism#3144
STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN).
Surely no one seeking real truth would accept a absolutely nothing hypothesis.
A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that AN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. AN has no creative powers and potentiality. This means AN cannot create or be the cause of anything, since its the absence of any thing.
C. AN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from AN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from AN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.
F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
H. AN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from AN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!
STEP 2: The universe had a beginning
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
Two cosmologists, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin both from Tufts University in Massachusetts, have stuck their necks out with a mathematical paper that considers the mathematics of eternity. In it, they take a close look at the concept of a universe that has no beginning or end.
Currently, there are two main descriptions of the universe's existence that suggest that the universe is eternally old—without a Big Bang. The first is the eternal inflation model, in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. Then, there's the idea of an emergent universe—one which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands into life.
Thing is, it turns out that the idea of an eternal universes can only allow certain types of universe expansion to occur—and then they go on to show that the current inflation models that have been suggested have to have a begining. Needles to say, some of the math in their paper is pretty complex—you can read it here, though, if you'd like—but they manage to sum the whole thing up rather neatly:
"Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past."
They also manage to scupper the idea that an emergent model of the universe can't stretch back eternally—but they choose to do that using quantum mechanics. Agains, neatly summing it up, they say:
"A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse."
Basically, they've taken aim at the two current models of the universe that asume it's eternally old, and conclude that "none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal." Which means the universe definitely had a beginning.
STEP 3: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must be spaceless and timeless. Infinite regress is impossible. Why ?
Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.
The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.
STEP 4: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must also be personal. The truth is that we know the event (the creation of the universe) must have been beyond space and time.
The cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].{2} Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation;
Therefore it cannot be physical or material. There are only two types of things that fit this description. Either abstract objects (like numbers), or some sort of intelligent mind…But we know abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations and are causally impotent. Therefore the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe, must be an unembodied, personal, space-less, immaterial, timeless, intelligent mind. Secondly, only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an non-personal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time, is for the cause to be a PERSONAL agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditions. One of the main questions we frequently ask is how could a timeless, non-personal cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? You see, if the cause were a non-personal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect... If the cause were permanently present without beginning, then the effect would be permanently present as well. And finally, since GOD would be the personal uncaused first cause, he is self-directed and self-motivated, and acted volitionally…If the cause were not personal it would not be capable of self-directed, self-motivated, volitional action. Preventing it from being the first cause.
STEP 5: A supernatural, timeless, immaterial, personal, eternal, uncreated creator must be responsible for the existence of the universe.
via Imgflip Meme Maker
Rando said:
5 Easy Steps to refute Atheism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-5-easy-steps-to-destroy-atheism#3144
STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN).
Surely no one seeking real truth would accept a absolutely nothing hypothesis.
A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that AN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. AN has no creative powers and potentiality. This means AN cannot create or be the cause of anything, since its the absence of any thing.
C. AN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from AN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from AN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.
F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
H. AN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from AN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!
STEP 2: The universe had a beginning
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
Two cosmologists, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin both from Tufts University in Massachusetts, have stuck their necks out with a mathematical paper that considers the mathematics of eternity. In it, they take a close look at the concept of a universe that has no beginning or end.
Currently, there are two main descriptions of the universe's existence that suggest that the universe is eternally old—without a Big Bang. The first is the eternal inflation model, in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. Then, there's the idea of an emergent universe—one which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands into life.
Thing is, it turns out that the idea of an eternal universes can only allow certain types of universe expansion to occur—and then they go on to show that the current inflation models that have been suggested have to have a begining. Needles to say, some of the math in their paper is pretty complex—you can read it here, though, if you'd like—but they manage to sum the whole thing up rather neatly:
"Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past."
They also manage to scupper the idea that an emergent model of the universe can't stretch back eternally—but they choose to do that using quantum mechanics. Agains, neatly summing it up, they say:
"A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse."
Basically, they've taken aim at the two current models of the universe that asume it's eternally old, and conclude that "none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal." Which means the universe definitely had a beginning.
STEP 3: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must be spaceless and timeless. Infinite regress is impossible. Why ?
Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.
The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.
STEP 4: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must also be personal. The truth is that we know the event (the creation of the universe) must have been beyond space and time.
The cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].{2} Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation;
Therefore it cannot be physical or material. There are only two types of things that fit this description. Either abstract objects (like numbers), or some sort of intelligent mind…But we know abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations and are causally impotent. Therefore the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe, must be an unembodied, personal, space-less, immaterial, timeless, intelligent mind. Secondly, only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an non-personal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time, is for the cause to be a PERSONAL agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditions. One of the main questions we frequently ask is how could a timeless, non-personal cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? You see, if the cause were a non-personal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect... If the cause were permanently present without beginning, then the effect would be permanently present as well. And finally, since GOD would be the personal uncaused first cause, he is self-directed and self-motivated, and acted volitionally…If the cause were not personal it would not be capable of self-directed, self-motivated, volitional action. Preventing it from being the first cause.
STEP 5: A supernatural, timeless, immaterial, personal, eternal, uncreated creator must be responsible for the existence of the universe.
via Imgflip Meme Maker
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Greetings,
As usual, a load of sophistric nonsense to deny the possibility of a eternal universe in favour of a intelligent mind.
Carrier has already shown that "AN" results in a multi-verse: Ex Nihilo Onus Merdae Fit.
In other words, regardless of whether there's AN or just nothing - which is actually something - then at least one universe is inevitable.
And your cited source doesn't understand causality.
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
As usual, a load of sophistric nonsense to deny the possibility of a eternal universe in favour of a intelligent mind.
Carrier has already shown that "AN" results in a multi-verse: Ex Nihilo Onus Merdae Fit.
In other words, regardless of whether there's AN or just nothing - which is actually something - then at least one universe is inevitable.
And your cited source doesn't understand causality.
Kindest regards,
James
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
absolutely nothing, and nothing, is the same. absolute just reinforces the meaning. and , no, a universe could not exist, why not ?
and absolutely nothing results in a multiverse is nonsense in the extreme. First, because absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, and has therefore no potentialities.
And secondly, the multiverse is fantasy as well. There is no evidence for such sophistry.
Dragan Glas said:
absolutely nothing, and nothing, is the same. absolute just reinforces the meaning. and , no, a universe could not exist, why not ?
and absolutely nothing results in a multiverse is nonsense in the extreme. First, because absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, and has therefore no potentialities.
And secondly, the multiverse is fantasy as well. There is no evidence for such sophistry.
Mr_Wilford
Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Greetings,
Nothing, in physics, represents the minimum state - in other words, the "nothing" of Krauss' book, amongst others.
Clearly, you either didn't read Carrier's article and/or didn't understand it.
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
Absolutely nothing and nothing are not the same thing at all.Elshamah said:
Nothing, in physics, represents the minimum state - in other words, the "nothing" of Krauss' book, amongst others.
Clearly, you either didn't read Carrier's article and/or didn't understand it.
Kindest regards,
James
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
As an explanation STEP 5 just invokes magic and has no relationship to what can reasonably be known. If, for example, you can have a timeless entity, then what we call nature is a more reasonable fit than something imagined beyond our world. Explanations through actual discovery and principles of science are more satisfying, despite there not being "answers" to everything. And there is no need to assume when we have good ideas like this.Elshamah said:
Mr_Wilford
Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Kk.
Not like I really care if there's a multiverse or not :lol:
Rhed said:itsdemtitans said:
Errrrt. Try again.
http://www.universetoday.com/118636/it-turns-out-primordial-gravitational-waves-werent-found/
And multiverse cannot ever be proven, therefore not science.
Kk.
Not like I really care if there's a multiverse or not :lol:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
This is simply bollocks, and exposes your ignorance quite nicely (even setting aside the fact that nothing is ever proven in science). There are implications of some multiverse models that have observable consequences. I covered a fair bit of this ground in the 'Before the Big Bang' thread, for anybody who's interested in what the valid science really says, as opposed to the contents of some twonk's intellectual bowels.
Making blanket statements like the above is about as fucking stupid as it's possible to get.
Rhed said:
This is simply bollocks, and exposes your ignorance quite nicely (even setting aside the fact that nothing is ever proven in science). There are implications of some multiverse models that have observable consequences. I covered a fair bit of this ground in the 'Before the Big Bang' thread, for anybody who's interested in what the valid science really says, as opposed to the contents of some twonk's intellectual bowels.
Making blanket statements like the above is about as fucking stupid as it's possible to get.
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
When the truth is dismissed, pseudo scientific nonsense runs wild. :lol:
The Multiverse - reasons, why it's not a good explanation for the existence of our fine-tuned universe.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1282-the-multiverse
a. The there are a virtually infinite number of universes coming into being, or
b. That it was not mere randomness that lead to our universe forming this way (with the implication of design).
Both options are proposing a reality "outside our universe", i.e. each option involves a form of "transcendence".
Also, each option involves a reality not subject to the natural laws of this universe, i.e. each option involves a kind of "supernaturalism".
Also, each option involves a form of reality that we could not expect to be able to "reach" or "observe" from within our universe, i.e. each is subject to similar difficulties of "falsifiability".
The list could be continued. And the point is that these are the *very arguments* that are levelled against the existence of a creator, yet must be accepted in the case of a multiverse.
http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php
if every possible universe exists, then, according to philosopher Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University, there must be a universe in which God exists – since his existence is logically possible – even though highly improbable in the view of the New Atheists. It then follows that, since God is omnipotent, he must exist in every universe and hence there is only one universe, this universe, of which he is the Creator and Upholder.
The concept of many worlds is clearly fraught with logical, and not only scientific, difficulties.[24] It can also present moral difficulties. If every logically possible universe exists, then presumably there is one in which I exist (or a copy of me?) and in which I am a murder – or worse. The concept seems therefore also to lead to moral absurdity.
Multiverse is a rather useless scientific theory, as it makes no predictions and is not testable or falsifiable. As a theological theory it assumes a large number of universes to nearly an infinite amount. While it deals with the organized complexity of this universe in a satisfactory manner (i.e. having infinite universes means even the small probability events like organized complexity must occur), it also creates a seeming organized and complex omniverse that itself needs justification for its complexity. So it does not answer the question, it pushes the question to the location of the unknowable.
1. Dawkins & many scientists allude to the multiverse as the best explanation for our universe. if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible… It’s actually happened! This means the Spaghetti monster MUST exist in one of the 10 to the 500 power multiverses. It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There’s a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn’t get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There’s even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities! I might sound like I’m joking, but actually I’m dead serious. Furthermore, this implies Zeus, Thor, and 1000s of other gods ALSO exist in these worlds. They ALL exist. We must now bow in humble respect to ALL of them. AMEN!
2.Suppose a dinosaur skeptic claimed that she could explain the bones by postulating a "dinosaur-bone-producing-field" that simply materialized the bones out of thin air. Moreover, suppose further that, to avoid objections such as that there are no known physical laws that would allow for such a mechanism, the dinosaur skeptic simply postulated that we have not yet discovered these laws or detected these fields. Surely, none of us would let this skeptical hypothesis deter us from inferring to the existence of dinosaurs. Why? Because although no one has directly observed dinosaurs, we do have experience of other animals leaving behind fossilized remains, and thus the dinosaur explanation is a natural extrapolation from our common experience. In contrast, to explain the dinosaur bones, the dinosaur skeptic has invented a set of physical laws, and a set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or experience.
In the case of the fine-tuning, we already know that minds often produce fine-tuned devices, such as Swiss watches. Postulating God--a supermind--as the explanation of the fine-tuning, therefore, is a natural extrapolation from of what we already observe minds to do. In contrast, it is difficult to see how the atheistic many-universes hypothesis could be considered a natural extrapolation from what we observe. Moreover, unlike the atheistic many-universes hypothesis, we have some experiential evidence for the existence of God, namely religious experience. Thus, by the above principle, we should prefer the theistic explanation of the fine-tuning over the atheistic many-universes explanation, everything else being equal.
3. the "many-universes generator" seems like it would need to be designed. For instance, in all current worked-out proposals for what this "universe generator" could be--such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models explained above--the "generator" itself is governed by a complex set of physical laws that allow it to produce the universes. It stands to reason, therefore, that if these laws were slightly different the generator probably would not be able to produce any universes that could sustain life. After all, even my bread machine has to be made just right in order to work properly, and it only produces loaves of bread, not universes! Or consider a device as simple as a mouse trap: it requires that all the parts, such as the spring and hammer, be arranged just right in order to function. It is doubtful, therefore, whether the atheistic many-universe theory can entirely eliminate the problem of design the atheist faces; rather, at least to some extent, it seems simply to move the problem of design up one level.
4. the universe generator must not only select the parameters of physics at random, but must actually randomly create or select the very laws of physics themselves. This makes this hypothesis seem even more far-fetched since it is difficult to see what possible physical mechanism could select or create laws.
The reason the "many-universes generator" must randomly select the laws of physics is that, just as the right values for the parameters of physics are needed for life to occur, the right set of laws is also needed. If, for instance, certain laws of physics were missing, life would be impossible. For example, without the law of inertia, which guarantees that particles do not shoot off at high speeds, life would probably not be possible (Leslie, Universes, p. 59). Another example is the law of gravity: if masses did not attract each other, there would be no planets or stars, and once again it seems that life would be impossible. Yet another example is the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the principle of quantum mechanics that says that no two fermions--such as electrons or protons--can share the same quantum state. As prominent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson points out [Disturbing the Universe, p. 251], without this principle all electrons would collapse into the nucleus and thus atoms would be impossible.
5. it cannot explain other features of the universe that seem to exhibit apparent design, whereas theism can. For example, many physicists, such as Albert Einstein, have observed that the basic laws of physics exhibit an extraordinary degree of beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity. Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, for instance, devotes a whole chapter of his book Dreams of a Final Theory (Chapter 6, "Beautiful Theories") explaining how the criteria of beauty and elegance are commonly used to guide physicists in formulating the right laws. Indeed, one of most prominent theoretical physicists of this century, Paul Dirac, went so far as to claim that "it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment" (1963, p. ??).
Now such beauty, elegance, and ingenuity make sense if the universe was designed by God. Under the atheistic many-universes hypothesis, however, there is no reason to expect the fundamental laws to be elegant or beautiful. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies writes, "If nature is so 'clever' as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?" (Superforce, pp. 235-36.)
6. neither the atheistic many-universes hypothesis (nor the atheistic single-universe hypothesis) can at present adequately account for the improbable initial arrangement of matter in the universe required by the second law of thermodynamics. To see this, note that according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. The standard way of understanding this entropy increase is to say that the universe is going from a state of order to disorder. We observe this entropy increase all the time around us: things, such as a child's bedroom, that start out highly organized tend to "decay" and become disorganized unless something or someone intervenes to stop it.
To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.
hackenslash said:
When the truth is dismissed, pseudo scientific nonsense runs wild. :lol:
The Multiverse - reasons, why it's not a good explanation for the existence of our fine-tuned universe.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1282-the-multiverse
a. The there are a virtually infinite number of universes coming into being, or
b. That it was not mere randomness that lead to our universe forming this way (with the implication of design).
Both options are proposing a reality "outside our universe", i.e. each option involves a form of "transcendence".
Also, each option involves a reality not subject to the natural laws of this universe, i.e. each option involves a kind of "supernaturalism".
Also, each option involves a form of reality that we could not expect to be able to "reach" or "observe" from within our universe, i.e. each is subject to similar difficulties of "falsifiability".
The list could be continued. And the point is that these are the *very arguments* that are levelled against the existence of a creator, yet must be accepted in the case of a multiverse.
http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php
if every possible universe exists, then, according to philosopher Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University, there must be a universe in which God exists – since his existence is logically possible – even though highly improbable in the view of the New Atheists. It then follows that, since God is omnipotent, he must exist in every universe and hence there is only one universe, this universe, of which he is the Creator and Upholder.
The concept of many worlds is clearly fraught with logical, and not only scientific, difficulties.[24] It can also present moral difficulties. If every logically possible universe exists, then presumably there is one in which I exist (or a copy of me?) and in which I am a murder – or worse. The concept seems therefore also to lead to moral absurdity.
Multiverse is a rather useless scientific theory, as it makes no predictions and is not testable or falsifiable. As a theological theory it assumes a large number of universes to nearly an infinite amount. While it deals with the organized complexity of this universe in a satisfactory manner (i.e. having infinite universes means even the small probability events like organized complexity must occur), it also creates a seeming organized and complex omniverse that itself needs justification for its complexity. So it does not answer the question, it pushes the question to the location of the unknowable.
1. Dawkins & many scientists allude to the multiverse as the best explanation for our universe. if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible… It’s actually happened! This means the Spaghetti monster MUST exist in one of the 10 to the 500 power multiverses. It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There’s a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn’t get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There’s even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities! I might sound like I’m joking, but actually I’m dead serious. Furthermore, this implies Zeus, Thor, and 1000s of other gods ALSO exist in these worlds. They ALL exist. We must now bow in humble respect to ALL of them. AMEN!
2.Suppose a dinosaur skeptic claimed that she could explain the bones by postulating a "dinosaur-bone-producing-field" that simply materialized the bones out of thin air. Moreover, suppose further that, to avoid objections such as that there are no known physical laws that would allow for such a mechanism, the dinosaur skeptic simply postulated that we have not yet discovered these laws or detected these fields. Surely, none of us would let this skeptical hypothesis deter us from inferring to the existence of dinosaurs. Why? Because although no one has directly observed dinosaurs, we do have experience of other animals leaving behind fossilized remains, and thus the dinosaur explanation is a natural extrapolation from our common experience. In contrast, to explain the dinosaur bones, the dinosaur skeptic has invented a set of physical laws, and a set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or experience.
In the case of the fine-tuning, we already know that minds often produce fine-tuned devices, such as Swiss watches. Postulating God--a supermind--as the explanation of the fine-tuning, therefore, is a natural extrapolation from of what we already observe minds to do. In contrast, it is difficult to see how the atheistic many-universes hypothesis could be considered a natural extrapolation from what we observe. Moreover, unlike the atheistic many-universes hypothesis, we have some experiential evidence for the existence of God, namely religious experience. Thus, by the above principle, we should prefer the theistic explanation of the fine-tuning over the atheistic many-universes explanation, everything else being equal.
3. the "many-universes generator" seems like it would need to be designed. For instance, in all current worked-out proposals for what this "universe generator" could be--such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models explained above--the "generator" itself is governed by a complex set of physical laws that allow it to produce the universes. It stands to reason, therefore, that if these laws were slightly different the generator probably would not be able to produce any universes that could sustain life. After all, even my bread machine has to be made just right in order to work properly, and it only produces loaves of bread, not universes! Or consider a device as simple as a mouse trap: it requires that all the parts, such as the spring and hammer, be arranged just right in order to function. It is doubtful, therefore, whether the atheistic many-universe theory can entirely eliminate the problem of design the atheist faces; rather, at least to some extent, it seems simply to move the problem of design up one level.
4. the universe generator must not only select the parameters of physics at random, but must actually randomly create or select the very laws of physics themselves. This makes this hypothesis seem even more far-fetched since it is difficult to see what possible physical mechanism could select or create laws.
The reason the "many-universes generator" must randomly select the laws of physics is that, just as the right values for the parameters of physics are needed for life to occur, the right set of laws is also needed. If, for instance, certain laws of physics were missing, life would be impossible. For example, without the law of inertia, which guarantees that particles do not shoot off at high speeds, life would probably not be possible (Leslie, Universes, p. 59). Another example is the law of gravity: if masses did not attract each other, there would be no planets or stars, and once again it seems that life would be impossible. Yet another example is the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the principle of quantum mechanics that says that no two fermions--such as electrons or protons--can share the same quantum state. As prominent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson points out [Disturbing the Universe, p. 251], without this principle all electrons would collapse into the nucleus and thus atoms would be impossible.
5. it cannot explain other features of the universe that seem to exhibit apparent design, whereas theism can. For example, many physicists, such as Albert Einstein, have observed that the basic laws of physics exhibit an extraordinary degree of beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity. Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, for instance, devotes a whole chapter of his book Dreams of a Final Theory (Chapter 6, "Beautiful Theories") explaining how the criteria of beauty and elegance are commonly used to guide physicists in formulating the right laws. Indeed, one of most prominent theoretical physicists of this century, Paul Dirac, went so far as to claim that "it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment" (1963, p. ??).
Now such beauty, elegance, and ingenuity make sense if the universe was designed by God. Under the atheistic many-universes hypothesis, however, there is no reason to expect the fundamental laws to be elegant or beautiful. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies writes, "If nature is so 'clever' as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?" (Superforce, pp. 235-36.)
6. neither the atheistic many-universes hypothesis (nor the atheistic single-universe hypothesis) can at present adequately account for the improbable initial arrangement of matter in the universe required by the second law of thermodynamics. To see this, note that according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. The standard way of understanding this entropy increase is to say that the universe is going from a state of order to disorder. We observe this entropy increase all the time around us: things, such as a child's bedroom, that start out highly organized tend to "decay" and become disorganized unless something or someone intervenes to stop it.
To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
The universe most probably had a beginning
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1297-the-universe-most-probabaly-had-a-beginning
Arno Penzias in : Cosmos, Bios and Theos, Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83
‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe
the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.
Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-there-any-rational-evidence-for-the-existence-of-god
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.
Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning,
and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past.
We can come to 5 conclusions how the universe started.
1) The Universe was created by nothing.
2) The Universe created itself.
3) The Universe was created by something that was also created, with an infinite number of events going back in creation.
4) The universe is eternal, without a beginning.
5) The Universe was created by something uncreated.
Numbers 1 and 2 we can already slash, they are against the basic laws of science. Nothing can create something, so basically saying, something cannot come from nothing.
Similarly, the universe cannot create itself if at one point it did not exist.
IF let us say that numbers 1 or 2 were the answers behind the creation of this universe, than that means a random elephant can pop out of nowhere if we go by that type of logic. What a world we will live in!
Going on to number 3, saying that the universe was created by something, which makes sense. But was that something ALSO created? And if so, what created THAT? See? Now here's the catch why number 3 cannot be. You cannot have an infinite number of events where something creates something else, which creates something else, which eventually gets to the creation of the universe. That is illogical.
Think of it this way. If I wanted to eat an apple, but I needed to ask my friend for permission, but before my friend can give me permission, he has to give HIS friend for permission, and then his friend needs to ask HIS friend for permission. And it keeps going on and on, the chain of friend's asking their friends for permission. If this keeps going on, will I ever be able to eat that apple? Never.
Apply this analogy with the universe. The past cannot go on forever. If it went forever, then TIME would never get HERE. We would never exist, we would never be here. Nothing right now would exist, if the past is still going on forever.
4. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.
Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.
However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.
This leaves us to the ONLY remaining and RATIONAL argument, #5.
This universe was created by something that was UNCREATED. This uncreated entity, we simply call, the Creator...Or...God, in religious terms.
This is fool proof logic, and nobody can deny it. This is ALL science.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html
http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning
red said:
The universe most probably had a beginning
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1297-the-universe-most-probabaly-had-a-beginning
Arno Penzias in : Cosmos, Bios and Theos, Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83
‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe
the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.
Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-there-any-rational-evidence-for-the-existence-of-god
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.
Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning,
and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past.
We can come to 5 conclusions how the universe started.
1) The Universe was created by nothing.
2) The Universe created itself.
3) The Universe was created by something that was also created, with an infinite number of events going back in creation.
4) The universe is eternal, without a beginning.
5) The Universe was created by something uncreated.
Numbers 1 and 2 we can already slash, they are against the basic laws of science. Nothing can create something, so basically saying, something cannot come from nothing.
Similarly, the universe cannot create itself if at one point it did not exist.
IF let us say that numbers 1 or 2 were the answers behind the creation of this universe, than that means a random elephant can pop out of nowhere if we go by that type of logic. What a world we will live in!
Going on to number 3, saying that the universe was created by something, which makes sense. But was that something ALSO created? And if so, what created THAT? See? Now here's the catch why number 3 cannot be. You cannot have an infinite number of events where something creates something else, which creates something else, which eventually gets to the creation of the universe. That is illogical.
Think of it this way. If I wanted to eat an apple, but I needed to ask my friend for permission, but before my friend can give me permission, he has to give HIS friend for permission, and then his friend needs to ask HIS friend for permission. And it keeps going on and on, the chain of friend's asking their friends for permission. If this keeps going on, will I ever be able to eat that apple? Never.
Apply this analogy with the universe. The past cannot go on forever. If it went forever, then TIME would never get HERE. We would never exist, we would never be here. Nothing right now would exist, if the past is still going on forever.
4. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.
Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.
However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.
This leaves us to the ONLY remaining and RATIONAL argument, #5.
This universe was created by something that was UNCREATED. This uncreated entity, we simply call, the Creator...Or...God, in religious terms.
This is fool proof logic, and nobody can deny it. This is ALL science.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html
http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning
MarsCydonia
New Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
If you want to discuss how the universe was created by a god by fallacy, please open a new thread instead of constantly derailing topics.
Your fallacious argumentation about the origin of the universe is no longer on topic, please stick to your fallacious argumentation that proteintransport into mitochondria is irreducible complex.Elshamah said:
If you want to discuss how the universe was created by a god by fallacy, please open a new thread instead of constantly derailing topics.