Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[ProfessorDavey]

You aren't replying to Vlad here

Oops - true - but the question is completely valid.

[Stranger]

Define 'stuff' then Vlad - it isn't a term I've heard my friends and colleagues in our school of physics use - including those who are eminent academic experts in theoretical particle physics, string theory or cosmology.

I'm not Vlad.

I borrowed the term from Matt Strassler (theoretical physicist who writes the blog I linked to before: here) and, IIRC,  speaker-to-animals from the old BBC boards used the term too (in much the same context). I said what I meant in the rest of the post: basically, as far as current science is concerned, it's quantum fields (and space-time, if you want).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A bit of an unwise intervention since the fine tuned universe is an idea amongst respectable physicists past and present.
Dawkins acknowledges this in the God delusion and advocates not only the multiverse but Smolin's evolutionary multiverse in that notoriously atheistic tome ''The God Delusion''. The scientist and atheist Massimo Piggliaci has taken Carroll to task for talking about trying to solve/circumvent Fine tuning and referring to it as ''The fine tuning problem''. Pointing out it is a problem for atheism but not science.

I use it here in answer to the contention that even if there were a creator there is no reason why it could not be unconscious and unintelligent or why it could be conscious and intelligent. Under an unconscious creator there would be nothing to stop it creating matter/energy or changing the parameters of the universe or for it to make only one universe.

And your answer to the circular reasoning problem it gives you if you want to argue it as evidence for "god" would be what?

IF you want to assume that a god intended us all along then you can wonder at the unlikelihood of the universe by chance alone turning out to be just right for our existence, and you might even conclude (albeit erroneously) that there must therefore have been a god to make the universe that way. You're still stuck though with your premise and your conclusion being the same thing - "god". Think Adams' puddle, and insert facepalm emoji here...   

[ProfessorDavey]

Bzzz Appeal to multiverse.

No - I'm not appealing to a multi-verse merely pointing out it as a plausible possibility. You are doing the opposite, you are limiting the possibility of multi-verse solutions in a (failed) attempt to justify a series of hand-waving assertions for which you have zero evidence and fall foul of Occam in multiple occasions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And your answer to the circular reasoning problem it gives you if you want to argue it as evidence for "god" would be what?

IF you want to assume that a god intended us all along then you can wonder at the unlikelihood of the universe by chance alone turning out to be just right for our existence, and you might even conclude (albeit erroneously) that there must therefore have been a god to make the universe that way. You're still stuck though with your premise and your conclusion being the same thing - "god". Think Adams' puddle, and insert facepalm emoji here...   

All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.

Dougie Adams was a flippant twat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - I'm not appealing to a multi-verse merely pointing out it as a plausible possibility. You are doing the opposite, you are limiting the possibility of multi-verse solutions in a (failed) attempt to justify a series of hand-waving assertions for which you have zero evidence and fall foul of Occam in multiple occasions.

The multiverse is an extra entity. But the only reason to ignore it is on the argument frequently used by atheists the ''current evidence'' argument.....only it's a bit worse than that given the issues of''stepping outside'' the universe for evidence.

In any case a multiverse just defers the issues around was it created, Is it infinite or did it spontaneously appear.

[ProfessorDavey]

In any case a multiverse just defers the issues around was it created, Is it infinite or did it spontaneously appear.

But the notion of appearance (or even creation) assumes a temporal component of time - in other words something wasn't there are one point in time but then appears at another point in time and is in existence during a further period of time.

If time itself is relative, non-fixed and flexible then those notions become meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.

No, that’s not all you’re saying at all. Leaving aside the manifold problems with conjecturing a “creator” at all (eg, Fletcher’s tunnel), you have no basis just to assume that this creator would have had any of these properties at all. That’s why what you actually said (Reply 310) was: “It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created” – ie, you tried the fine tuning fallacy to justify intentionality.

What “fixed tuned” parameters were you proposing exactly if not “tuning” for a purpose?

Evasion noted though

Dougie Adams was a flippant twat.

No he wasn’t, but ad hominem noted. 

[jeremyp]

All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.

"Conscious intelligent creator of the Universe". If this entity exists, we would certainly call it God.

[jeremyp]

In any case a multiverse just defers the issues around was it created, Is it infinite or did it spontaneously appear.

So does a god.

[Owlswing]

Yes but it's what your idea of a ''hit'' is.

A Hit is pointing out that you are talking rubbish!

You know two-thirds of three fifths of f**k-all about paganism and thus you make statements that are showing your level of ignorance for all who DO know about paganism. I, on the other hand, do know about Christianity having been force-fed it for twelve or thirteen years.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, that’s not all you’re saying at all. Leaving aside the manifold problems with conjecturing a “creator” at all (eg, Fletcher’s tunnel), you have no basis just to assume that this creator would have had any of these properties at all. That’s why what you actually said (Reply 310) was: “It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created” – ie, you tried the fine tuning fallacy to justify intentionality.

Or I just outlined what an unconscious creator would entail. Fine tuning is an idea in Physics Hillside.
It just means that the parameters of the universe are not shifting and there is conservation of energy something we would not expect if creation was the act of something unconscious. There is therefore no virtue in ruling out intentionality Since you seem bent on an unconscious creator stopping or starting the universe or maintaining it have you thought of driving while asleep?

As for you arguing out of Fletcher's tunnel...…...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Or I just outlined what an unconscious creator would entail. Fine tuning is an idea in Physics Hillside.

No you didn’t, and no it isn’t. “Tuning” is a purposive act - it requires intentionality. Physics makes no such claim – it merely observes, describes and develops theories about the known parameters.

If you want to talk about the parameters of the universe too, that’s fine; if you want to assert them to have been “tuned” that way though, then you’re in a world of trouble.
 

It just means that the parameters of the universe are not shifting…

No it doesn’t. “Stable” or “static” or “unchanging” would to do that, but “tuned” means something else. To be “tuned” you’d need a tuner – QED.

…and there is conservation of energy something we would not expect if creation was the act of something unconscious.

Non sequitur. Why not? And while you’re at it, why not with no “creator” at all?

There is therefore no virtue in ruling out intentionality

Actually there is, for the same reason there’s “virtue” in ruling out leprechauns – they add nothing of explanatory value, and in any case no-one “rules out” anything as a possibility – your god, any other god, and leprechauns included. That’s your standard burden of proof mistake remember?

Since you seem bent on an unconscious creator stopping or starting the universe or maintaining it have you thought of driving while asleep?

As I’ve always explained perfectly clearly that I see no good reason to believe there to have been a “creator” at all, even for you this is one of the more egregious lies you’ve tried.

As for you arguing out of Fletcher's tunnel...…...

You’re the one who’s (unwittingly) argued his way into it – it’s your job therefore to find a way out.

Oh, and no apology for you ad hom re Douglas Adams then? Why am I not surprised?

[Outrider]

Or I just outlined what an unconscious creator would entail. Fine tuning is an idea in Physics Hillside.

No, it isn't, because it's not testable - it's not a scientific idea at all. It's an idea about science for philosophers.

It just means that the parameters of the universe are not shifting and there is conservation of energy something we would not expect if creation was the act of something unconscious.

Why would we not?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No you didn’t, and no it isn’t. “Tuning” is a purposive act - it requires intentionality. Physics makes no such claim – it merely observes, describes and develops theories about the known parameters.

If you want to talk about the parameters of the universe too, that’s fine; if you want to assert them to have been “tuned” that way though, then you’re in a world of trouble.
 
No it doesn’t. “Stable” or “static” or “unchanging” would to do that, but “tuned” means something else. To be “tuned” you’d need a tuner – QED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

These mention physics and the part of physicists. Hard Luck.

Actually there is, for the same reason there’s “virtue” in ruling out leprechauns – they add nothing of explanatory value, and in any case no-one “rules out” anything as a possibility – your god, any other god, and leprechauns included. That’s your standard burden of proof mistake remember?

leprechauns BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Argumentum ad ridiculum or Horse laugh fallacy.

Oh, and no apology for you ad hom re Douglas Adams then? Why am I not surprised?

Why should I when I think the bloke was a c*nt?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would we not?

You are expecting actual laws and a reasonable universe rather than chaos?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

These mention physics and the part of physicists. Hard Luck.

These articles refer to the adjustments the physicists themselves do, not to “tuning” as implying that there must therefore have been a tuner a priori to make the universe a certain way, which is what you were attempting in Reply 310 (“It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.”)

Hard luck indeed. Actually no luck involved – just more of your dishonesty.

leprechauns BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Argumentum ad ridiculum or Horse laugh fallacy.

Wrong again. It’s actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a sound rhetorical argument. Here’s a link that would get you started if you didn’t just ignore it (which you will):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Why should I when I think the bloke was a c*nt?

What a despicable piece of work you are. Even if that was true though (and it isn’t) it would tell you nothing about whether or not Adams’ puddle is a legitimate argument (which it is). That was your ad hom – attack the (supposed) character of the person making the argument, but not the argument itself. Shame on you. 

To summarise, you just attempted:

1. Misrepresentation of the science

2. Doubling down on your circular reasoning

3. Misunderstanding of a rhetorical argument

4. Repetition of a previous ad hom

Why not find another mb to pollute now you've had your fun here?

[jeremyp]

leprechauns BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Argumentum ad ridiculum or Horse laugh fallacy.

Bzzzzzzzzzt wrong. If you'd read what was said, you'd understand there was no fallacious reasoning in the argument.

[Stranger]

You are expecting actual laws and a reasonable universe rather than chaos?

This is utterly silly. Why would you expect an conscious law maker to just happen to exist rather than chaos, any more than a universe with consistent laws? All the evidence we have is that consciousness requires an ordered universe, not the other way around.

Where is the first hint of a morsel of a scintilla of a suggestion of a reason to take the idea of a conscious creator seriously?

[Sebastian Toe]

All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.

If you happened to be talking about God though,.
Would some or all of those attributes be required for him to exist?

[Outrider]

You are expecting actual laws and a reasonable universe rather than chaos?

I fail to see how conservation of energy leads to a conclusion of 'conscious creator'.  I'm not 'expecting' anything - I'm seeing consistent behaviour from the universe, and presuming that there are underlying laws of nature that lead to that.  I'm not presuming something must have 'decided' those rules, because then I also need to explain the rules for that consciousness and it's mechanism for deciding and implementing rules.

O.

[ippy]

All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.

Dougie Adams was a flippant twat.

Assuming Douglas was a flippant twat, even if this were so he still managed to sum you up and others just like you in a nutshell!

Regards, ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not Vlad.

Indeed you are not

I borrowed the term from Matt Strassler (theoretical physicist who writes the blog I linked to before: here) and, IIRC,  speaker-to-animals from the old BBC boards used the term too (in much the same context). I said what I meant in the rest of the post: basically, as far as current science is concerned, it's quantum fields (and space-time, if you want).

Haven't looked through this in details but isn't he just using the term 'stuff' to describe 'matter' - indeed he states that 'Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context' and I'm struggling to see where he defines something as being 'stuff', but not 'matter'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

These articles refer to the adjustments the physicists themselves do, not to “tuning” as implying that there must therefore have been a tuner a priori to make the universe a certain way, which is what you were attempting in Reply 310 (“It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.”)

Hard luck indeed. Actually no luck involved – just more of your dishonesty.

Wrong again. It’s actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a sound rhetorical argument. Here’s a link that would get you started if you didn’t just ignore it (which you will):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

straight out of the New Atheist playbook.

Why not find another mb to pollute now you've had your fun here?

Why, just because I think Douglas Adams was a c*nt?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

straight out of the New Atheist playbook.

So I identified the four dishonesties/mistakes you attempted and rather then deal with the problem you went for the ad hom again. Whether the arguments that undid you were from the "New Atheist playbook" (whatever that might be), learned philosophical tomes or the backs of fag packets makes no difference at all to the validity of the arguments themselves.

Why, just because I think Douglas Adams was a c*nt?

No, because you think that making that assertion is a legitimate response to an argument he made that falsified a previous one you'd attempted.

Well that and the facts that you either have no understanding of or deliberately misrepresent the science and reasoning you attempt to pray in aid, that you consistently ignore or misrepresent every argument that's put to you, that you're utterly dishonest in all your dealing here, that you routinely play the same card as the pigeon that knocks over the chess pieces, craps on the board and then flies off to claim its "victory", that for some unknown reason you find people replying in good faith to your unremitting trolling to be amusing enough to provoke you to even more of it, that you have no intention actually of discussing anything, that you will never own or learn from your repeated mistakes despite having them explained to you over and over again, that...

...enough?