LogicalFallacy

Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

58 posts in this topic

No Josh, it doesn't eliminate option # 3.

That option is only eliminated by knowledge, not by a working assumption, like the CP.   But by making such a working assumption on the back of the knowledge we do have, we can make informed predictions about what we think we will discover in the future.  When these predictions are confirmed (and many have been) this gives us confidence that the CP is a good assumption to make about universe and how it works.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
17 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

No Josh, it doesn't eliminate option # 3.

That option is only eliminated by knowledge, not by a working assumption, like the CP.   But by making such a working assumption on the back of the knowledge we do have, we can make informed predictions about what we think we will discover in the future.  When these predictions are confirmed (and many have been) this gives us confidence that the CP is a good assumption to make about universe and how it works.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

I guess LF will catch up to this at some point. I'm just trying to reason through his assertion of option #3. I'm sure he'll want to know what knowledge eliminate's option #3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Josh, BAA

 

Fascinating discussion. Yes I am reading, sometimes I take time to process and think about stuff. Unlike the ToT thread I like to think deeper about serious threads. It was interesting watching this recent conversation play out between you both.

 

There appears to be a discussion regarding absolute knowledge/truth/falseness as opposed to what can be reasonably assumed with what knowledge we do have. I'll try and explain in reference to specific quoted posts. 

 

 

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 0:32 PM, bornagainathiest said:

It's not as cut and dried as true or false, LF.

 

Please remember that proofs (where there is 100% confidence in a result) only happen in math.

Every other branch of the sciences deal with evidence and they attempt to explain what is observed in the light of that evidence.  Confidence in that evidence can be very high, but it cannot be total and absolute.  Therefore, when a scientist speaks about something being falsified, they don't mean totally falsified.  They mean falsified as well as the evidence will permit.

 

Absolutely, I understand this. When I used the phrase "can be shown to be false" I was not meaning in the 2+2=5 false way, but rather that we can look at the evidence and reasonably conclude that there is no privileged position. I would stall maintain, as I'm sure you both do, that there is currently no way to KNOW (So 100% certainty), but we can make a reasoned conclusion one way or the other.

 

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 0:32 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

In a nutshell, if the universe were in any kind of rotary motion, that effect would be imprinted (and therefore visible) as sideways shear in the CMB data.  But the many tests run by these scientists have found that the odds are 121,000 to 1 against there being any such motion.  While this is not 100% conclusive evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, it is still very strong evidence that it doesn't do so.   This paper is a powerful and highly-relevant example of science severely testing it's own basic assumptions - and finding them confirmed to very high levels of confidence.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Thus would give support to my at the time rather naïve statement that "the idea that everything rotates around earth can be shown as false as everything is moving away from us… not around us. "

I would possibly correct that because is more that it can be shown that there is no evidence of the universe rotating around us, but rather moving in an expansion. However not everything is moving AWAY from us - I invoke The Andromeda Galaxy at this point which seems to be on a collision course.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

This whole thing seems to have taken a misunderstanding turn. It looks like LF proposed that we have no way of knowing if our position in the universe is privileged or not. And asked you if that answers his own question:  "How is this applying to there being no privileged position in the galaxy? ".

 

 

Some clarification: Yes there is no way of 100% knowing, but at the time I made that post I still understood the CP as showing we are not privileged in our position.

 

Hmm doing some thinking here: If we are the centre of the universe then:

1) Everything in the universe is static in relation to us - I think we can safely throw this one away

2) Everything is rotating around us - BAA's referenced article gives evidence against this

3) Everything is moving away/towards us while we are stationary at its centre.

 

Any response to #3?

 

 

57 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

It looked like a clever response to me, which I expressed. He found the middle way between the theist and atheist argument of claiming privilege (theist) verses claiming no privilege (atheist). You then posted fireworks and praise. And I wondered if you understood what he meant by suggesting that we don't know whether or not there is a privileged position in the universe. Because it seems to question the CP. 

 

Possibly we were not quite on the same interpretation of my post therefore my response wasn't quite that clever? Might have been more a fluke of wisdom? :D

 

57 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So you definitely do take the position that there is no privileged position in the universe and you do cite the CP for that analysis. I must have missed post #21 or forgot about it. So GR is the part of the CP that would suggest that the option LF mentioned above about not knowing one way or the other can be ruled out.

 

Briefly, we can assume that all stars have planets as we observe here and abroad. Even though they're out of scope. It's a logical deduction based on the fact that stars seem to go hand in hand with planets. We don't know, but we assume based on thinking that it ought to be like what we do perceive. 

 

How does GR show the error in concluding that we do not whether or not there's a privileged position in the universe? You mentioned that because everything is relative there's no privileged position, but does that necessarily eliminate the option #3, that we do not know one way or the other? 

 

I think that's the meat of the question that LF was asking you previously.

 

 

So I think BAA is saying that we cannot 100% know, but we can deduce, based on our observations, that our position is not privileged and this is how CP applied to Genesis 1:1.

 

"God created the heaven and the earth". They may have well written God created the universe as there is nothing special about the earth. The only reason we (human "we") think its special is because we are here thinking its special. If we were on Mar's we'd be thinking Mars is special.

 

57 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:
14 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I guess LF will catch up to this at some point. I'm just trying to reason through his assertion of option #3. I'm sure he'll want to know what knowledge eliminate's option #3. 

 

I think at this point I may have confused myself... I'll see what you guys respond to this post before sorting through it. We may be using the terms knowledge differently?

 

My position seems to be that we can't know if our position is privileged one way or the other, but we can reason from information we have that it's not a privileged position.

 

Thanks guys, great conversation we are having.

LF

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will read and digest your post, LF.

 

Then get back to you here, as time permits.

 

Bye!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BAA, no pressure my friend. I probably need to re-read the entire thread and make sure I'm understanding the subjects being discussed with more clarity.

 

If I update posts, I'll make changes in red to track any changes in understanding. (Hereupon a Christian might say "change your understanding? Oh goodness me no!" :D )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I think at this point I may have confused myself... I'll see what you guys respond to this post before sorting through it. We may be using the terms knowledge differently?

 

My position seems to be that we can't know if our position is privileged one way or the other, but we can reason from information we have that it's not a privileged position.

 

Thanks guys, great conversation we are having.

LF

 

It is a great conversation. 

 

I guess it boils down to what we mean as privileged? Does that only mean being smack dab in the center of an expanding universe? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

It is a great conversation. 

 

I guess it boils down to what we mean as privileged? Does that only mean being smack dab in the center of an expanding universe? 

 

 

 

Haha, I asked that very question as a PS to my post... then deleted it because I thought well of course that's what we are discussing.

 

This was my question:

 

PS: In relation to discussing the concept of privileged are we meaning only the position of the earth in the universe? Or are we also discussing water, life etc?

 

Then I thought, nah, look at the conversation , we know what we are talking about - we are talking about earth being centre of the universe.

 

But are we privileged as far as other aspects go, and is this even relevant in a discussion with a theist re Genesis 1:1? (Huge topic, lets not discuss that which will not help in the discussion - we still have Parsimony, Inflation, and infinite replication to discuss... and work out how it all goes to a comprehensive "The bible fails at Genesis 1:1 because...." :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like we've sorted out the CP and GR as something less than 100% certain, so we're facing the claim that science doesn't know for sure to 100%, but finds the earth at the center of the universe very or extremely unlikely. 

 

Now for parsimony, Inflation, and infinite replication. Will any of these turn out more or less substantial in scope while in dialogue with a creationist? 

 

Let's see....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Well, it looks like we've sorted out the CP and GR as something less than 100% certain

 

Yes, and anyone who tells me these days that they "Know", or are 100% certain faces the full brunt of my scepticism.

 

This is probably a result of people saying they know God exists, and they know God's will, while maintaining that we cannot understand God.

 

Josh, just to clarify, you are not saying that because science is not 100% certain then this line of argument against Genesis 1:1 is a poor argument?

 

Or should I ask that in the positive sense... do you consider this line of argument against Genesis 1:1 to be a strong argument? Hmmm maybe we wait until we cover all topics before waxing philosophical? :) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends on how you feel about telling a creationist that you're not 100% sure that Genesis is wrong about the earth as the center of the universe, but you find it extremely unlikely to be true. 

 

What it says more specifically in Genesis 1:1 is, "In the beginning..." 

 

What BAA hasn't mentioned is the problems with apologists trying to latch on to science's suggestion of a beginning. That's where this all actually starts out, before the mention of creating the heavens and earth. Is there any hard and fixed beginning in the first place? Apologists keep looking for one with respect to cosmology, thinking that that one simply aspect of cosmology can be used to suggest the bible was correct all along. 

 

This whole debate actually starts there before the god(s) created the heavens and earth at the center.... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm coming back to BAA and Dude's topic, the only person of the three of us (BAA, Josh, LF) with a full understanding of how they've applied the subject topics is BAA.

 

Josh you and I are like the diagram - bits of knowledge off to the side, but not full knowledge of how BAA combines it all to combat Genesis 1:1. It's going to be interesting as we move on through and work out our understanding. It's quite possible that we won't arrive at the same "truth" position, but still all have knowledge of the truth. Yeah now I'm sounding philosophical lol

 

Re apologists - that sort of latching on is simply post hoc rationalization.

 

Well I have wondered that - we talk about the big bang as the beginning, but what if it was only the beginning of our current universe. There might not be an ultimate beginning. 

 

The more I learn these days the more I realise I don't know very much and still have many questions to answer. I regret only that I have but one lifetime to learn what I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Re apologists - that sort of latching on is simply post hoc rationalization.

 

Well I have wondered that - we talk about the big bang as the beginning, but what if it was only the beginning of our current universe. There might not be an ultimate beginning.

 

We were discussing this a lot before you were active here. BAA and myself were looking at the problem of fixed beginnings and how some apologists wrongly take multiverse cosmology and try linking it back to Genesis 1:1. I'm rehashing that for the sake of analyzing the very beginning of the verse. 

 

I don't think there ever was any ultimate beginning, and neither did BAA when we last spoke about it. Your argument has to start there because apologists start there. 

 

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Josh you and I are like the diagram - bits of knowledge off to the side, but not full knowledge of how BAA combines it all to combat Genesis 1:1.

 

That's what we're waiting to see. I'm curious to revisit the problem of fixed beginnings to see if his ideas have changed over the last few years or not. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!  I have a little time, so I can have a shot at answering these points.

 

1) Everything in the universe is static in relation to us - I think we can safely throw this one away

2) Everything is rotating around us - BAA's referenced article gives evidence against this

3) Everything is moving away/towards us while we are stationary at its centre.

 

Firstly, I think we're all on the same page when it comes to what science can and cannot do.  We're all ok with the notion that science can never answer any question with 100% confidence.  Therefore, the info I'm going to relate in this post isn't in any way the absolute and final answer of answers.  It's less than 100% certain.  As is all scientific data.  Assuming that's accepted, I'll move on.

 

# 1 was effectively answered in the 1960's, when the Steady State universe theory was overturned by the evidence for the Big Bang.  

You can read about it here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

 

# 2 is adequately answered by the article I cited for the Dude's attention.

 

# 3 breaks down into two possibilities.  

That we static and unmoving, with the universe contracting towards us and vice versa, with the universe expanding away from it's fixed center, where we are.  For the first one to be viable, every galaxy beyond the Local Group, every galactic cluster and galactic supercluster would have to show a blue shift in their light.  This would be the natural consequence of their motion towards us.  If receding galaxies are red shifted, then approaching ones must be blue shifted.  The Doppler shift works both ways.  Since we don't see such a blue shift, we can therefore discount the first possibility.

 

Now we must check carefully what we mean by the word 'us' when we look at the second possibility.

If 'us' means the planet Earth, then we immediately hit a problem.  The Sun, the rest of planets, the asteroids and comets do not orbit around the Earth.  That has been observed for centuries.

If 'us' means the solar system, then we hit another problem.  The rest of the Milky Way galaxy does not orbit around the Sun.  This has been observed since the 1920's.

If 'us' means the Milky Way, another problem arises.  The Local group of galaxies... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group  ...isn't centered upon the Milky Way.  Instead, it has a binary distribution of mass, with the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy (M31) being the two main centers of mass.  M31 isn't falling towards us - the two main galaxies of the Local Group are both being pulled toward each other by mutual gravitational attraction.  This has been observed since the 1990's.

If 'us' means the Local Group of galaxies, yet another problem emerges.  As this link shows... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Supercluster ...the Local Group is part of the Virgo Supercluster of galaxies, which seems to make up one lobe of an even greater supercluster of galaxies, called Laniakea.  Yet neither the Virgo or Laniakea superclusters orbit the Local Group.  Instead, something is pulling thousands of galaxies in a bulk flow towards the constellation Norma.

 

Large-scale dynamics

Since the late 1980s it has been apparent that not only the Local Group, but all matter out to a distance of at least 50 Mpc is experiencing a bulk flow on the order of 600 km/s in the direction of the Norma Cluster (Abell 3627).[11] Lynden-Bell et al. (1988) dubbed the cause of this the "Great Attractor". While astronomers are confident of the velocity of the LS, which has been measured against the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the nature of what is causing it remains poorly understood.

 

So, at whatever scale we choose, nothing seems to orbiting 'us'.

Since every part of the universe, at all scales, is observed to be in motion, if we were at the fixed and unmoving center of everything, then surely something would be orbiting 'us'?  But that isn't what we see.  To my knowledge, there are only two things that are orbiting us.  One is natural, the Moon.  The other is a group of artificial objects, placed into space by us.  These are our satellites.  

 

On the basis of the above presentation, I hereby submit that we can also discount option # 3.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this Q & A list on my computers hard drive, guys.

It's years old.  Ok, it doesn't really add to what's already be covered, but it cements some of it firmly in place.  Thanks.

 

Q1.  Is the center of the Earth also the true center of the Earth-Moon system?

A1.  No. The gravitational center of the Earth-Moon system (it's barycenter) is displaced 4,641 miles towards the Moon.  That is, 4,641 miles away from the Earth's core, which is this planet's physical center.

 

Q2.  Is the Earth at the true center of the solar system?  

A2.  No. The Earth is on average 93,000,000 miles from the Sun, which is (generally) considered to be the center of the solar system.

 

Q3.  Is the center of the Sun also the true center of the solar system?

A3.  No.  The barycentre of the solar system is displaced by the combined gravity of the planets to a point just outside the Sun's surface.  Systems of planets orbiting other stars display similar or even greater gravitational displacements, which tells us that our planetary system is quite average and ordinary.

 

Q4.  Is the Sun at the true center of our region of the Milky Way?

A4.  No.  We are situated near the edge of the Orion Spur, which is a minor spiral arm of our galaxy.  The Scutum-Centaurus, Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms are considerably larger and more important than our neighborhood.

 

Q5.  Is the Sun at the true center of our galaxy, the Milky Way? 

A5.  No.  The Sun orbits the nucleus (gravitational barycentre) of our galaxy at about a distance of 30,000 light years.  In the nucleus is a supermassive black hole called Sag A* (Sagittarius 'A' star), weighing about 4.2 million times the mass of our Sun.  Nearly all galaxies seem to have central, supermassive black holes.  This tells us that the Milky Way is quite an average galaxy, rather than a special or extraordinary one.

 

Q6.  Is our galaxy the true center of our Local Group of (approximately 50) galaxies?

A6.  No.  The barycentre of the Local Group lies between us and the Andromeda galaxy.  Since Andromeda is estimated to be 2.5 million (2,500,000) light years from us and since it is also more massive than the Milky Way, the barycentre of the entire Local Group is therefore likely to be closer to it than it is to us.  Perhaps as much 1.75 million (1,750,000) light years away.  Clusters of galaxies are observed to orbit common centers of gravity, making the behavior of our local grouping nothing special.

 

Q7.  Is our Local Group of galaxies the true center of our Supercluster of galaxies?

A7.  No.  We reside in the Laniakea Supercluster, which consists of four sub-parts: the Hydrus-Centaurus, the Pavo-Indus, the Southern and the Virgo Superclusters.  Our Local Group is a small part of the Virgo supercluster, which is now considered to be an appendage to the much larger Laniakea Supercluster of 100,000 thousand galaxies.  We are therefore a very small cog in a much, much bigger structure that extends almost half a billion light years from side to side.

 

Q8.  Is the Laniakea Supercluster the true center of the observable universe?

A8.  No.  It is just one of many galactic superclusters stretching across the entire observable universe (93,000,000,000 light years across) in vast filaments, sheets and curtains, separated from each other equally-gigantic voids, where few galaxies exist. 

 

Q9.  Is the observable universe the true center of the E-N-T-I-R-E universe?

A9.  Unknown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So really it's only question #9 that leaves science less than 100% certain. 

 

Reading this Q&A makes me think that the better way to address the issue is simply start out with the bibles cosmology, the image of the universe portrayed in the bible: 

 

The earth and skies according to Genesis 1

 

This is the bibles claim that the heavens and earth were created, in the beginning, and that the sun, moon, and stars were created 3 days later all around this flat disc earth. That's the bibles claim that the earth is the center of the universe and where the notion of a privileged position comes from. And that's because the unformed earth and heavens were created first and then everything was created around the earth after the fact. That's being intellectually honest to the bible and it's claims. 

 

Question #9 has literally nothing to do with the bible and it's claims of privilege as the center of a geocentric solar system and universe.

 

Even if we were to discover that the answer to question #9 is that the visible universe is the center of the entire universe, which seems unlikely, that in no way flatters or justifies the bibles image of a flat disc earth with waters above and below, where days occur without sunlight and the rest of the universe is multilayered. At the minimum it means that the image of the cosmos in the bible was NOT revealed by a god who knows the factual dimensions and technicalities of the earth and cosmos. It can NOT have been inspired nor dictated by an all knowing god unless that all knowing god purposely inspired an extremely incorrect and out of scale image of the earth and universe. 

 

By sticking to an intellectually honest evaluation of both the bible and modern science we find a situation where we admit that science doesn't know 100%, per question #9, and also that the bibles attempt at centering the earth in the universe isn't even valid because it's entire cosmology is falsified from the very outset. The bible isn't even a contender in the questioning process of center in the universe. So it's completely besides the point.

 

That's where it seems best to hold the noses of apologists....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good input there, Josh.

You've covered one half of the claim LogicalFallacy took me up on in this thread's OP.  I agree.  There's next to no correspondence between the Bronze age cosmology of the Genesis creation narrative and the scientific evidence we have about the origin of the universe.  Therefore, the beliefs of the Biblical literalist Christians who hold to a 6 day Creation are falsified by science and can (imho) be dismissed.  What remains is the other half of my claim.  To refresh your memory, here's what I said.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/74685-see-if-you-can-spot-the-problem-with-this-theology/?hl=copernican#entry1127752 

 

As far as I'm concerned, both scenarios (Biblical literalism or trying to reconcile science with scripture) are doomed to failure.  

The first, because the literalist use of Hebrews 11 : 3 generates a circular argument and all such arguments are invalid.  

The second, because theists always (Yes, I mean always) cheat when trying to reconcile science with Genesis 1 : 1.

 

So, if LF declares himself in agreement with you and I about the mismatch between the ancient Biblical cosmology and modern scientific cosmology, I'd suggest that our next step is to look at the other major school of Christian thought about Creation.  That is, the modernist Christians who try to reconcile science with scripture by not reading Genesis literally.  Those who say that the text was sufficient for people of those times, but with a bit of rationalization, it can be shown to agree with the latest scientific evidence about the Big Bang.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bornagainathiest said:

So, if LF declares himself in agreement with you and I about the mismatch between the ancient Biblical cosmology and modern scientific cosmology, I'd suggest that our next step is to look at the other major school of Christian thought about Creation.  That is, the modernist Christians who try to reconcile science with scripture by not reading Genesis literally.  Those who say that the text was sufficient for people of those times, but with a bit of rationalization, it can be shown to agree with the latest scientific evidence about the Big Bang.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Definitely in agreement guys. I had thought of the image that Josh posted.

 

Re the non literal reading. This could be interesting because we have at least two groups that might argue the concept.

 

#1 is your Ken Ham group of Creationists who claim the bible is literal, and make great pains to who how this is so. However even this group does not read Genesis 1 entirely literally - if they did they would get Josh's image. So in some part they still come under the not literally reading Genesis 1

#2 is the more liberal groups who say to extrapolate out days with millions of years etc

 

A third group that could be interesting is the ones that say Genesis is obviously myth, but the bible is true, Jesus was the son of God etc... is our line of argument of any effect against these folks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group #1 The literalists are toast. And you can call attention to their less than 100% literal interpretation of Genesis. They start digging themselves into a hole. 

 

Group #2 The liberal group is toast as well. How many days, or rather segments of millions of years went by before the creation of the sun, moon and stars? Was it not really just 3 days with no sun, moon, or stars but rather 3 million years, or 300 million years going by before the sun was created, for the purpose of marking days? Did the hole not just getting even deeper than it was when group #1 started digging it? 

 

Group #3  The next liberal group, is basically the example Deidre has raised. Readily admit the bible's myth and none of it can be proven, but still think it's true any ways and carry on as if it were. I think it comes down to analyzing the methodology behind the reasoning. Considering how the first two groups play out, how much sense does it make to still think that the bible must be true regardless of it's many errant aspects? We're down to grasping at straws and trying to cling on to something by any means by the time we get to group #3.  Like scratching at the walls of a by now, deep, deep hole trying to resist the inevitable fall. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys!  

 

Yes, there seems to be a spectrum of Christian belief at work here, ranging from the ultra-literal to the ultra-liberal.  Presumably, those at the literal end either don't care about the evidence that falsifies their beliefs or they just dismiss it at Satanic lies.  Best leave them to their own devices, methinks.  Perhaps those at the mid-point (the Day = Age proponents) are happy to pay lip service to both scripture and science, but don't dare look too closely at the details?  If they did so, their ad-hoc cosmology would fall apart under inspection.  Quite why or how they can't see this eludes me.   And why they can't see that to persist is a wilful act of dishonesty, is also beyond me.   :shrug:

 

But what about the Christians who are also scientists and who should understand why science and scripture can't be reconciled?

I don't think these people fall into the ultra-liberal category.  So how can they understand the proper workings of the Copernican principle, yet still think that the Earth is somehow special?  Such as this example?

 

http://www.reasons.org/articles/are-humans-special

 

Can you see the two acts of sleight-of-hand Zweerink uses in his article?  To supposedly show that there is no conflict between science and scripture?  

 

http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/jeff-zweerink

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very quickly before I read links I have a point.

 

This might be a side note but ties into reconciling scripture with science.

 

A big thing for me, coming from a literal background (Ken Ham style) was age of universe and evolution.

 

Evolution in particular I think should, if one accepts it, put a baseball bat through the glass pane of ones Christianity. Ken Ham is right, either all of the bible is true and inspired by God, or none of it. While you might think you can get away with accepting Genesis as largely myth, you run into problems regarding Jesus and the plan of salvation. Essentially without the literal Garden of Eden, there is no need for a literal Jesus saving you from original sin. Ipso facto anyone accepting evolution should not be Christian. It mystifies me as to how Francis Collins manages it.

 

Right now I wandered down that lil sidetrack I'm back on the main path :)

 

Ok, lets see if I get this right:

 

1) He talks of Copernicus actually "promoting" earth from its center being the lowest point of the universe. But this would seem to ignore the importance the church placed on the earth being at the center - as far as they were concerned this was taking earth from its rightful place in scripture. In fact some Christians today will argue that the whole heliocentric model is a conspiracy by Satan to make people believe that the earth is not at the center of everything. So the writer seems to have fooled himself about the impact of the Copernican principle

2) He commits a ad populum fallacy by stating that it seems almost everyone clings to the belief that humans are special. The only reason that we think we (royal we here) are special is because we exist. The only reason we think earth is special is because we exist on this planet. If we existed on some other planet in different forms we'd still think we are special. (My dog thinks she is special!). This is summed up by Carl Sagan "Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work, worthy of the interposition of a deity". He also said if horses and cows could think and draw they would make their gods to look like them. He then takes this point further by saying if God does not exist then why can we think about understand a universe that cannot understand us?

 

I would also say that his fine tuning argument is a little shaky - he describes a world on the boarder between chaos and order. Kind of a strange situation for an almighty God to create - hope heavens not like that. Not particularly keen on having the Alpine Fault in heaven rupture underneath me! The way I see it the fine tuning argument can only hold water if we are the only life in the universe. Once we discover other life we are not special, and life did not need this 'finely tuned' universe.

 

Incidentally I was listening to a lecture on youtube about the 6 constants they talk about with fine tuning. The presenter (an atheist) made the point these fine tuned constant numbers are created by humans to understand they present reality. We have no idea if, were the factors different, whether life could be supported. We only know that if they were different, then our universe would be different. Again I think the fine tuning is similar to saying, hey look, we are here, we must be special. Quite possibly, billions of light years away, at this very instant, there is an intelligent being saying hey look, I'm here, I must be important. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That gets deep as you go along. Is any self aware creature in the universe not special? There may be something more to that special feeling, as in if we (intelligent life) serve a function of some type as the sensing organs of the planets and universe at large. What if intelligent life is inevitable and part of an ongoing process that has always been going on and will always go on? Something resembling intelligent life inevitable time and again. There's a lot of questions to consider. And there may be deeper reasons for thinking of ourselves as special.

 

But of course those deeper reasons of consideration have nothing to do with the way in which judaism and christianity view the notion of special and privileged via ancient texts. That type of special and privileged is falsified immediately upon inspection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your responses guys and sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

 

Zweerink's two instances of chicanery have to do with him holding two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time - without letting the reader know that it's impossible for them to peacefully coexist.  So you're both on the right track.  LF correctly zeroes in on Z's use of the Fine-Tuned Universe argument to suggest that we humans might be special. That's one instance. Josh correctly points out that any kind of 'specialness' science might show us cannot be honestly reconciled with any ancient texts.  That's the other.  I will explain further.

 

If we look at only the universe that we can see (the observable universe) then it does indeed seem to be finely-tuned for life in many ways.

But does Z do that?  No.  He opens up the entire Multiverse for examination.  Like this...

 

If the universe (or multiverse) is all that exists, then humanity ultimately stands as a highly ordered yet fleeting configuration of atoms that will quickly disappear in the increasing entropy of the universe.

 

So, can a Fine-Tuned observable universe and an infinitely large Multiverse peacefully co-exist?

The answer is No.  The second totally refutes the first.  In an infinite number of universes, the number of ways any part of this infinite ensemble can be fine-tuned for life is... infinite.  It doesn't matter how many parameters of fine-tuning you have - a 100 or a 1,000 or a 1,000,000 - any finite number, when multiplied by infinity, yields infinity.  In an infinite Multiverse, our particular universe is nothing special at all.  Nothing in the Multiverse is special.  Therefore, if Z posits the notion of a Multiverse, then he can't attribute any 'specialness' to any part of it and certainly not to our part of it.  The Multiverse refutes and destroys all 'specialness'.  Everything, no matter bizarre and unlikely is endlessly repeated across infinity.  As a space scientist, Z must know this.  The fact that he doesn't declare the contradiction between the Multiverse and the Fine-Tuned universe argument indicates that his religious beliefs have compromised his scientific professionalism, honesty and integrity.

 

The other example of Z holding two, mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time can be seen here...

 

If a transcendent being (like the God of the Bible) is responsible for this fine-tuned design, then humanity’s specialness ultimately flows from the value God bestows upon us. The Bible makes this point explicitly. Genesis 1:26–27 tells us that God created humans, and only humans, in His own image! Our physical makeup and location have no relevance to our specialness.

 

Question:  Did anything in science inform Zweerink that the God of the Bible made us in His image?

Answer:     No.  Science is totally agnostic on matters of religion, faith and personal belief.

 

The particle physicist Professor Matt Strassler makes this eloquently clear in his blog.  https://profmattstrassler.com/  In his Jan 14 entry (Alternative Facts & Crying Wolf)  he writes... 

 

 It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

 

This is exactly how science is supposed to work.

Every scientist is supposed to leave their personal political and religious beliefs at the door.  There's just one type of science and it's strictly agnostic and apolitical.   But what does Zweerink do?  Does he clearly divide his personal, religious beliefs from his scientific observations and speculations?  No.  He freely mixes science with faith, allowing the uninformed reader to conclude that Z's religious beliefs are supported by scientific evidence.  A scientist's personal beliefs and their professional life are two mutually-exclusive spheres.  If the are allowed to overlap in any way, then this overlap MUST be clearly announced so that there is no misunderstanding.  Zweerink does no such thing.  Therefore, he is guilty of gross professional misconduct.  

 

And the prime reason why he has compromised himself in this way?

 

His Christian faith.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

If a transcendent being (like the God of the Bible) is responsible for this fine-tuned design, then humanity’s specialness ultimately flows from the value God bestows upon us. The Bible makes this point explicitly. Genesis 1:26–27 tells us that God created humans, and only humans, in His own image! Our physical makeup and location have no relevance to our specialness.

 

There's so much wrong with this statement.

 

How does this idiot suppose he's going to reconcile the notion of a transcendent god, the god of the bible who's conceptualized as infinite, eternal and omnipresent with having a fixed image, the human image to be exact which is necessarily a FINITE image? How can he propose we take this literally, in the literal sense of the terms and suggested biblical nature of the claim being made?

 

The hole get's deeper and deeper the more the apologist struggles along... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just keeping this thread ticking over, guys.

 

Here are some graphics that I hope to use to explain how the theists misunderstand and/or cheat, when it comes to the Copernican principle.

 

figure4.jpeg

 

tumblr_ohfuhlLPOf1rhpxxoo1_1280.png

 

Chess.gif

 

redwing_mohawk_by_redjak6t4-db2zv41.jpg

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BAA

 

Just recapping my understanding of the Copernican principle: "Basically the Copernican principle states that earth does not occupy a privileged position in the universe - essentially we are not the center of either our solar system, our galaxy, or the universe as a whole. It also states that on very large scales the universe is the same everywhere, and looks the same when viewed from any location."

 

So looking at your first image, it appears each progression is zooming up on the spherical image to the point where it actually appears nearly flat (Which earth does when not viewed from a distance far enough away)

 

The second one is doubling the number at each progressive square - except by the end its just a big pile with no visual way of confirming if it is double the previous pile.

 

The third is similar, except a bunch of squares hasn't been filled out and a random number put there instead. Am I correct in saying that 2 power of 63 is incorrect and that it should be 2 power of 64? (Being 64 squares on the board?) 

 

The forth one I'm scratching my head at what its getting at.. no doubt you will fill in :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now