- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipAlvin Plantinga: it's a science stopper.
That is a theological or philosophical muse. The end of the road for the Science is that the universe looks like the work of intelligent design.
That is the last stop on the Science train. That's what it looks like - ID.
"Science Stoppers?
There is still another reason for methodological naturalism; this one too is common sense
simplicity itself. God has created this whole wonderful and awful (both taken in their
etymological senses) world of ours. One of the things we want to do as his creatures is to
understand the world he has made, see (to the e
xtent that we can) how it is made, what its
structure is, how it works. This is not, of course, the
only
thing God's children must do
with the world; we must also appreciate it, care for it, love it, thank the Lord for it, and
see his hand in it. But understanding it is
valuable, and so is understanding it in a
theoretical way. One way of understanding something is to see how it is made, how it is
put together, and how it works. That is what goes on in natural science. The object of this
science is nature; for Christians, its aim (one of its aims) is to see what the structure of
this world is and how it works; this is a way of appreciating God's creation, and part of
what it is to exercise the image of God in which we have been created.
But there will be little advance along this front if, in answer to the question, "Why does
so and so work the way it does?" or "What is the explanation of so and so?" we regularly
and often reply "Because God did it that way" or "Because it pleased God that it should
be like that." This will often62
be true, but it is not the sort of answer we want at that
juncture. It goes without saying that God has in one way or another brought it about that
the universe displays the character it doe
s; but what we want to know in science are the
answers to questions like "What is this made
out of? What is its structure? How does it
work? How is it connected with other parts of God's creation?" Claims to the effect that
God has done this or that (created life, or created human life)
directly
are in a sense
science stoppers. If this claim
is true, then presumably we can't go on to learn something
further about how it was done or how the phenomenon in question works; if God did it
directly, there will be nothing further to fin
d out. How does it happen that there is such a
thing as light? Well, God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. This is of course
true, and of enormous importance, but taken as s
cience it isn't helpful; it doesn't help us
find out more about light, what its physical char
acter is, how it is related to other things,
and the like. Ascribing something to the direct action of God tends to cut off further
inquiry."
Sorry about the choppiness. It wasn't my doing.
https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_2.pdf
18 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipGot a time machine? Put a quarter in the slot and go forward 10^18 years. Look around. Entropy to the left, entropy to the right. Heat death.
Find a chaotic universe and your point would gain some weightier significance.
There's your chaotic universe. Make sure you bring an extra quarter for the return trip.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Soothfast
Got a time machine? Put a quarter in the slot and go forward 10^18 years. Look around. Entropy to the left, entropy to the right. Heat death.
There's your chaotic universe. Make sure you bring an extra quarter for the return trip.
As a matter of fact I do have a Time Machine.
I look around 10~18th years from now and I see it looks pretty marvelous around.
Excuse me, I have to get back to the enjoyment!
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
18 Dec 14
Originally posted by KellyJayI get the feeling that you're imagining that every event in the formation of our solar system was completely independent of all the earlier events. As if in this solar system two events took place, but not the third, or in that system three events took place, but out of order. I would have thought that earlier events more or less create the conditions necessary for subsequent events (or at least substantially increase the odds for subsequent events), as it is in biology. And given the number of tries (some hundred billion stars in our own galaxy alone), I shouldn't think it's too surprising that the right conditions formed in just one (or possibly a relative few) solar systems.
...you mix A and B at just the right times,
with just the right amounts, under proper conditions you get C; however,
you alter the timing conditions you lose the ability to mix them correctly,
and if the amount of A and B is limited you could lose it all together! The
same is true of right amounts having to little or to much, or under improper
conditions.
Also, we don't know how sensitive a balance has to be struck to allow for the formation and sustenance of life. It's not at all a given that life could not have formed, if conditions were radically different. For instance, Ross points out that Jupiter deflects large objects with its gravity, so that they don't hit us too often. But is it really necessary that it be a planet like Jupiter? Couldn't it just as well be several planets, or a different sized planet closer to or further from earth? The important thing is that large objects heading for earth are tugged in different directions. So I can imagine quite a few scenarios where that would be the case. I'm not at all convinced that the odds of every step in the formation of our system had to be precisely calibrated, but that many different variations on the same theme would have done just as well.
18 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessNo I get the feeling they are all connected and you if you mix something
I get the feeling that you're imagining that every event in the formation of our solar system was completely independent of all the earlier events. As if in this solar system two events took place, but not the third, or in that system three events took place, but out of order. I would have thought that earlier events more or less create the conditions necessa ...[text shortened]... y calibrated, but that many different variations on the same theme would have done just as well.
and end up with X and X stops all the things you need to produce life, then
you have lost out on life. If a gazillion things have to happen in the right
order, under the right conditions, and so on if that chain is broken at any
point it all falls apart. A fine tuned universe should open the eyes of those
that believe it all just happened, but it will not. They want to believe what
they want to believe and they will reject anything that doesn't show them
the end result they desire.
It is no different than a new reporter wanting to write a certain story, they
just ignore what is in front of them to focus on those things that agree with
their point of view.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Dec 14
Originally posted by KellyJayIs that tendency limited to one side?
No I get the feeling they are all connected and you if you mix something
and end up with X and X stops all the things you need to produce life, then
you have lost out on life. If a gazillion things have to happen in the right
order, under the right conditions, and so on if that chain is broken at any
point it all falls apart. A fine tuned universe shoul ...[text shortened]... t ignore what is in front of them to focus on those things that agree with
their point of view.
19 Dec 14
3 edits
There are certain concepts that need to be understood in order to fully appreciate the Fine Tuned Universe argument for what it is.
One concept is that a given result of an event of any complexity whatsoever will yield high odds against it having occurred. Even for a simple event such as rolling a Yahtzee of five fives on the first roll, the odds are only 1 in 7776. For a given result that is the product of a complex of multiple events involving multiple forces, the odds can easily rise to astronomical levels. Naturally, the universe is one such complex.
Another concept is that how the result of such a complex is perceived is dependent not only on the result, but also on the observer.
Take a stain found on the wall of an expressway underpass such as the one found near Chicago some years back:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7570729/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/salt-runoff-or-face-virgin-mary/
If the stain is merely a pattern-less blob, people just shrug their shoulders.
If the stain resembles Cosmo Kramer, people say, "How interesting" and shrug their shoulders.
If the stain resembles the Virgin Mary, people who attach a special significance to this say, "This can't be random. The odds are astronomical against this result". They see "design". People who don't attach such a significance say, "How interesting" and shrug their shoulders.
The difference is that by attaching a special significance to the result, the individual has in effect transformed the result into a desired "goal". The reality is that the result is still only one of an astronomically high number of possible results, regardless of how the observer may feel.
People who attach a special significance to a universe having life as we know it say, "This can't be random. The odds are astronomical against this result". They see "design".
People who don't attach such a significance say, "How interesting" and shrug their shoulders. They see "Cosmo Kramer".
Such is the Fine Tuned Universe argument.
20 Dec 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAs I said, people see what they want which isn't always what is really there.
There are certain concepts that need to be understood in order to fully appreciate the Fine Tuned Universe argument for what it is.
One concept is that a given result of an event of any complexity whatsoever will yield high odds against it having occurred. Even for a simple event such as rolling a Yahtzee of five fives on the first roll, the odds ar ...[text shortened]... and shrug their shoulders. They see "Cosmo Kramer".
Such is the Fine Tuned Universe argument.
20 Dec 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePoor analogy.
There are certain concepts that need to be understood in order to fully appreciate the Fine Tuned Universe argument for what it is.
One concept is that a given result of an event of any complexity whatsoever will yield high odds against it having occurred. Even for a simple event such as rolling a Yahtzee of five fives on the first roll, the odds ar ...[text shortened]... and shrug their shoulders. They see "Cosmo Kramer".
Such is the Fine Tuned Universe argument.
The curious among us (theologians, scientists, puzzle-solvers, et al) are constantly searching for congruity and pattern, for predictability.
We don't communicate with one another via random scribbling and/or meaningless symbols, hoping others ascend to our intended meanings.
We follow rules of grammar, syntax for clarity of thought.
A person who follows such rules of communication conveys to others both a humility as well as an agreement of acceptable behavior.
A person who refuses to follow such rules of communication conveys to others an arrogance as well as a refusal to join a social contract.
For those who join, the use of idea-derived words imparts to the reader/hearer the intelligence and intent of the mind behind the output.
You cannot read these letters and words and surmise, "Cosmo Kramer," unless one of two things is present: words which direct you thusly, or a rejection of the plain meaning of the words.
Patterns within the physical world do not suggest a mindful creation: they demand the same.
20 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLike I said:
Poor analogy.
The curious among us (theologians, scientists, puzzle-solvers, et al) are constantly searching for congruity and pattern, for predictability.
We don't communicate with one another via random scribbling and/or meaningless symbols, hoping others ascend to our intended meanings.
We follow rules of grammar, syntax for clarity of thought.
...[text shortened]... .
Patterns within the physical world do not suggest a mindful creation: they demand the same.
Another concept is that how the result of such a complex is perceived is dependent not only on the result, but also on the observer...The difference is that by attaching a special significance to the result, the individual has in effect transformed the result into a desired "goal". The reality is that the result is still only one of an astronomically high number of possible results, regardless of how the observer may feel.
If I read your meaning correctly, it would seem that in your case the above holds up quite well. Your presupposition of a "designer" has you not only transforming the result into a desired "goal", but also into seeing "words" that serve to confirm your presupposition. Fascinating.
As a matter of curiosity, in the scenario of the stain, would the "words" tell you that both the "Cosmo Kramer" and the "Virgin Mary" were "designed"? How about the "pattern-less blob"?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Dec 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Maybe I didn't make it clear what part of his post I was reacting to.
I don't even understand that sentence!
Can you explain it? ... then prove it?
It was "It is no different than a new reporter wanting to write a certain story, they
just ignore what is in front of them to focus on those things that agree with
their point of view."
I asked, isn't that true of both sides of an issue. The anser seems to be to something else.