5/6/09

Scientific [Fiction] American

FYI: this post has been moved here.

26 comments:

  1. Interesting post. Good points.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mariano, I have a couple of degrees in Engineering and I've go to tell you that I really agree with your points. I think it takes more faith to believe that the charge of an election just happens to be 1.6 X 10 to the -19 coulombs (any larger or smaller atoms as we know them would not exist!)than it does to accept the obvious that the universe is designed and the one who did wants us to recognize and understand what He did!

    ReplyDelete
  3. These are not good points at all. The author fails to acknowledge the fact that there are other planets in the universe that are in orbits a lot like earth that is hospitable to life. We don't yet know if there is life but the conditions of the plants and their positions make it possible.

    I swear. This site is just stupid and all their arguments are just full of holes. How anyone can take you seriously I'll never know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >The author fails to acknowledge the fact that there are other planets in the universe that are in orbits a lot like earth that is hospitable to life.

    I reply: Accept the fine tuning values (about a 135 last count) that make life possible occured at the Big Bang & have little or nothing to do with how many other life bearing planets there might be in the Universe.

    That's the point of the post.

    Stick with what you are good at Anonymous/XAtheistX. Name calling, making phony slanderous posts in other people's names, & using heaps of foul language.

    Leave the rational arguments to the grown ups.

    BTW a planet orbiting in the proverbial Goldielocks Zone is only one condition for life as we know it. We need a main sequence Star (most stars are Red Dwarfs & planet in that "Goldielocks Zone" would be tital locked & subject to too much lethal radiation.).
    Also having a Moon is part of the life equation as well.

    So many variables. So many.......

    ReplyDelete
  5. There could either be a million other life-bearing planets or only one (ours). Neither possibility does anything to deflate any non-materialist conclusions one might draw from the fine-tuning of the universe.

    Mariano did make good points, because the fact is, in general the atheist's counterpoints to fine tuning are rather flaccid - for lack of a better word.

    I actually get that response often, and it always makes me smirk because I can't believe that an atheist would claim that the universe is not fine-tuned unless every last possible cubed inch of it is hospitable to life. As if theists didn't think of that when we began to take notice of fine-tuning in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If anyone is saying anything that would make one smirk this would be it. This is just another "god of the gap" argument and doesn't come close to proving your imaginary friend. It's pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shhhh! The grown ups are talking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes youre right. You should be quiet Ben and let those people talk who actually have something rational to say. Like me. You sure didn't say anything to argue against my argument did you? I doubt you could anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How is using foul language & putting up slanderous posts in other people's names "rational argument"?

    BTW FYI 135 fine tunings(&growing) is not a mere "gap" it's a chasm. Thus merely saying "god of the gaps" is hardly a substantive rebuttal.

    Really, read Quentin Smith or some other rational Atheist. Dawkins is rotting your brain kid.

    So let the grown ups talk & do what you do best. Use foul language & accuse Theists of
    being child molesters. There's a good fellow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey, you once again forgot to forgive him. Are you beginning to get in an unforgiving mood?

    But on your topic of child molestation, the catholic church has a real problem with it. And you are catholic. That's not much of a gap to stride.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BenHack, you know the thrill of seeing that unshaved 7 year old penis getting erect for the first time, and how you slowly stroke it and massage it into a nectar delight for the tounge. It's mentoring the boys not molesting them. And remember the excitement of that one kid who liked having your finger inserted into his anus as you did a billy bass on his frontside? Some things are just worth it aren't they BenRapinKids?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You see, foul language & charges of child molesting. That's what you are good at kid so don't tax your brain with complex issues. Play to your strengths.

    Leave the grown up issues to us adults.

    As for forgiveness know that I always forgive you even when I don't say it all the time. so you need not worry.

    But if it helps you sleep at night then I still forgive you Anonymous/XAtheistX.

    The Real BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I still forgive you.

    The Real BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  20. I love being forgiven, it feels so nice and fresh. Like a spring breeze.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If anyone is saying anything that would make one smirk this would be it. This is just another "god of the gap" argument and doesn't come close to proving your imaginary friend. It's pathetic.There isn't an argument here. Using characatures, and blindly throwing out "god of the gaps" isn't an argument. The fine tuning of the universe doesn't depend on a gap in our knowledge, it was actually discovered as our knowledge increased.

    No offense, but I wouldn't go around bragging about how rational you are, unless you have something better to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "should not keep us from detecting design"

    I detect design every day. Mostly it's mundane things like cars and houses and grocery stores. Did you have something else in mind?

    "the physical laws imply fine-tuning"

    This universe is the only reality that we know of. So perhaps "fine-tuning" really is just an accident. How do you calculate the probability that this universe exists? I think it's 1.

    "The fact that it is a logical and scientifically valid inference to consider fine-tuning to imply creation"

    You are entitled to your opinion. How come there are so many people that seem to disagree with such an "obvious" fact? They are deluded, not you? Or they don't come with the same preconceptions as you do?

    "Accept the fine tuning values (about a 135 last count)"

    Hilarious. Perhaps 1 or 2 would be enough? Why are 135 better than 2?

    "The fine tuning of the universe doesn't depend on a gap in our knowledge"

    Well, how many other universes do you know of that are not properly "fine-tuned"? Is your knowledge of other universes a little short here? Is that a "gap"?

    But the point is - even if some "creator" of this universe did "fine-tune" it, that says nothing about the currently accepted concepts of a religion that thinks that this creator continues to interfere in this universe. Let's talk about the concept of "prayer". That "creator" that fine-tuned this universe 14 billion years ago is "listening" to me and may grant my wishes if ... if what? Religion is crazy. God is a delusion. Seems like an obvious fact.

    ReplyDelete
  23. IrishFarmer said:

    "There isn't an argument here. Using characatures, and blindly throwing out "god of the gaps" isn't an argument. The fine tuning of the universe doesn't depend on a gap in our knowledge, it was actually discovered as our knowledge increased.

    No offense, but I wouldn't go around bragging about how rational you are, unless you have something better to back it up."

    These numbers aren't necessarily "designed" and they are also not setting on a 'razor's edge', in that if they were off just a small degree everything would fall apart. That's not accurate. There is actually some variance that these numbers can have.

    Victor J. Stenger said in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis:

    "Many of the examples of fine-tuning found in theological literature suffer from simple misunderstandings of physics. For example, any references to the fine-tuning of constants like the speed of light,c, Planck's constant, h, or Newton's gravitational constant, G, are irrelevant since these are all arbitrary constants whose values simply define the system of units being used. Only 'dimensionless' numbers that do not depend on units, such as the ratio of the strengths of gravity and electromagnetism are meaningful.

    Some of the 'remarkable precision' of physical parameters that people talk about is highly misleading because it depends on the choice of units. For example, theologian John Jefferson Davis asserts, 'If the mass of of neutrinos were 5 x 10 - 34 instead of 5 x 10- 35 kg [kilogram], because of their great abundance in the universe, the additional gravitational mass would result in a contracting rather than expanding universe.' This sounds like fine-tuning by one part in 10- 35. However, as philosopher Neil Manson points out, this is like saying that 'if he had been one part in 10- 16 of a light year shorter (that is, one meter shorter), Michael Jordan would not have been the word's greatest basketball player.....'

    One of the many major flaws with most studies of the anthropic principle coincidences is that the investigators vary a single parameter while assuming all the others remain fixed. They further compound this mistake by proceeding to calculate meaningless probabilities based on the grossly erroneous assumptions that all the parameters are independent....

    Physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which 'stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise.' Physicist Craig Hogan has done another independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions. And, theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in Japan have shown that heavy elements needed for life will be present in even the earliest stars independent of what the exact parameters for star formation may have been."

    No offense, but your pitiful arguments don't prove a damn thing. They are just "god of the gap" arguments. Since we do not have enough information about the "fine tuning" of the universe doesn't mean your god did it! You've got nothing but rhetoric and I've got evidence and facts.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Really I'm serious you need professional help XAtheistX/Anonymous/Ted.

    I'll pray for you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ben, you moron. I was being sarcastic but just in a very rude way. Farmer boy was insulting me, but trying to be subtle about it by saying "no offense" so I just turned it back around on him.

    And as usual not one person has answered my argument that farmer boy said I didn't have.

    Anyone who believes in God needs mental help.

    You'll pray for me? Ok good. I'll THINK for you.

    I don't know why you think I'm Ted and that Anonymous fellow. I'm not. Like I told you before if I want to talk crap about you I won't hide behind some fake name. I'll want you to know it's me.

    ReplyDelete