Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:

[bornagainathiest]

(Snip)

 

 

Now for the BIG question!

Before I ask it, I first have to ask you to trust me on certain points and then for you to take these into account when you answer the question.  Please trust me on the following points, written in bold. (I will explain each of them and why they hang together as they do, but that will have to wait until after you've replied and answered the question in red, ok?) 

 

Cosmology refutes the Fine-Tuned Universe argument.  

Therefore, Fine-Tuning cannot be used to support Intelligent Design.

Therefore, only Earthly evidence can be used to support Intelligent Design.

But that evidence is uniform, limited and local - not diverse, global and universal.

Using local evidence in a non-local way runs the risk making of false conclusions. (The sailor!)

Because of this risk, it is unsafe to assume or conclude that ID must be elsewhere. 

Assumptions remain assumptions until they are supported by evidence.

Therefore, we cannot safely assume or conclude that ID exists anywhere BUT Earth.

If the Earth is special, this violates the Cosmological and Copernican principles.

If the Earth is not special, we can assume that ID should be present elsewhere.

But there is no evidence of this - only assumptions.

 

 

 

Q.

Taking the above points into account, if the only evidence for ID is here on Earth, can we reliably infer that ID must be present, anywhere else in the universe?

 

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

Hey BAA   My answer: No, we cannot reliably infer that ID must be present anywhere else in the universe (if we agree with all the points in bold).

 

I'm not sure I agree with all the points in bold, and so I shall await your futher explanations of those points. 

 

Could you please indicate which ones you don't agree with and why, BC?  Then I can address only those, rather than the lot.  Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

One can always have some fun by suggesting that evolution is a natural and logical consequence of ID.

 

Naughty! 

[boftx]

...

 

Therefore, only Earthly evidence can be used to support Intelligent Design.

But that evidence is uniform, limited and local - not diverse, global and universal.

 

...

 

 

Those premises are invalid given that we are collecting data from space via earthbound instruments, satellites and exploration (i.e. Mars landers) on a routine basis.

 

Granted, any physical samples such as dust from nearby planets and other bodies can be considered to be "local" in scope in relation to the size of the Universe, data collected from electormagnetic radiation is distinctly universal in nature as such data has allowed us to push our horizon ever further back in time. This includes data that is being collected by earth-bound instruments such as the LHC and the search for the "God" particle.

 

While such data might be observed locally, to deny the origins as being at the heart/formation of the Universe as we see it is to deny the existence of the Universe as we understand it.

[BlackCat]

Ok, I'll try to explain why I'm struggling to follow your points in bold. I've tried to address each one these past 2 hours (and have now deleted my attempts), but I'm struggling to voice what I'm thinking. Firstly it strikes me that we can't really discuss the possibility of ID by having a 'local' and 'universal' separation of it. Boftx seems to be touching on this in his post (welcome to this discussion Boftx and thank you for your comments.) If ID were true, then the Big Bang and what was prior (the Superforce or seed), would be an unfolding process of ID: so it would all be ID. I agree that fine-tuning isn't proof of ID but neither does it disprove ID. Can you separate fine-tuning from ID even? It's way past my bed time so I'll try to refer directly to your points tomorrow.

[BlackCat]

BAA- you proposed this line of reasoning: 

 

 

Cosmology refutes the Fine-Tuned Universe argument.

Therefore, Fine-Tuning cannot be used to support Intelligent Design.

Therefore, only Earthly evidence can be used to support Intelligent Design.

But that evidence is uniform, limited and local - not diverse, global and universal.

Using local evidence in a non-local way runs the risk making of false conclusions. (The sailor!)

Because of this risk, it is unsafe to assume or conclude that ID must be elsewhere.

Assumptions remain assumptions until they are supported by evidence.

Therefore, we cannot safely assume or conclude that ID exists anywhere BUT Earth.

If the Earth is special, this violates the Cosmological and Copernican principles.

If the Earth is not special, we can assume that ID should be present elsewhere.

But there is no evidence of this - only assumptions.

 

I don't think these points taken together are correct.  I don't think you can single out 'fine-tuning' when considering ID.  I believe there are three main indicators of ID:

 

why is there 'something' or why was there a 'superforce' and what caused it to fracture? 

 

Why is the universe arranged in such a way that life has evolved?

 

Why does life look designed e.g molecular machines?

 

The first point seems impossible to know??  The second point is linked to the first point and as we don't know why there is something and not nothing, we can just accept that the 'something' looks like what it looks like. 

 

So really, the last indicator is the main one that we can closely study for signs of ID -  but we need to bear in mind the bigger picture, and that our local 'view' is a snapshot of the universe: we know that similar planets and galaxies to ours exist throughout the universe and so there is no reason why life cannot be present else where in a similarly arranged way, in the universe and so  I don't regard our concentration on the local view as 'rigging' our understanding of ID.  I maintain that we know enough of the bigger picture to base our understanding of ID on.  If we can't come to some sort of agreement on this point, we will not be able to proceed easily with our discussion of ID.  If I'm wrong in my assessment, I hope you can show me where I'm going wrong. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

...

 

Therefore, only Earthly evidence can be used to support Intelligent Design.

But that evidence is uniform, limited and local - not diverse, global and universal.

 

...

 

 

Those premises are invalid given that we are collecting data from space via earthbound instruments, satellites and exploration (i.e. Mars landers) on a routine basis.

 

Granted, any physical samples such as dust from nearby planets and other bodies can be considered to be "local" in scope in relation to the size of the Universe, data collected from electormagnetic radiation is distinctly universal in nature as such data has allowed us to push our horizon ever further back in time. This includes data that is being collected by earth-bound instruments such as the LHC and the search for the "God" particle.

 

While such data might be observed locally, to deny the origins as being at the heart/formation of the Universe as we see it is to deny the existence of the Universe as we understand it.

 

Agree Botfx.

Conditionally, that is.  I will explain further.

 

Those premises are invalid, for the very reasons you state. 

However, I'm in a long and deep dialog about ID with BlackCat and I recently agreed to share my personal objections to ID with her.  Now, there's nothing wrong with her brain (she's a smart lady), but she's somewhat unfamiliar with the way science works and very unfamiliar with things cosmological and astronomical.  Therefore, as an amateur astronomer who is familar with some aspects of cosmological and astronomical science, it falls to me to explain my position to her in a readily-accessible way.

 

So, instead of going into detail about stuff like the B-mode oscillations in the primordial quark-gluon plasma, I've tried to avoid as many of these complexities as I can.  Instead I summarize as much as I can and then try to present the core issues in (hopefully) an easily-understood manner.   I also use necessarily over-simplified analogies, examples and images to get the salient points over.  Obviously, in doing these things I have to skim over or completely ignore many details which should figure in a properly-constructed line of argument.

 

Which explains why you (quite rightly) detected the invalidity of those two premises. 

It serves my purpose (explaining my objections about ID) to present certain things in a less-than-rigorous way ...that's all.  Nor is there is any intention to deceive on my part.  I am not being duplicitous.  So please rest easy, if such a suspicion entered your mind.  To demonstrate my good faith here, I will explain the purpose of the first two premises, so that you can see how they have affected the third and fourth ones, making them appear invalid from your rigorous p.o.v.

 

Cosmology refutes the Fine-Tuned Universe argument.

Therefore, Fine-Tuning cannot be used to support Intelligent Design.

I stand by these, but I've yet to justify them in this thread.  If I'm asked to, I'll certainly do so.  Doing that will mean going into the basic tenets of the argument itself.  I'll also have to explain just what aspects of cosmological science refute it and how they do so.  These will be time-consuming and complex efforts on my part, because I'll have to take concepts and facts that I'm familiar with and frame them in such a way that BlackCat can understand them.  Not because she's dumb.  (Far from it!  I totally agree with Josh's comments in the first paragraph of #301)  But simply because she's unfamiliar with these exotic and brain-wrenching ideas.

 

Anyway, how do premises 1 and 2 affect 3 and 4?

I used 1 and 2 to 'decapitate' ID and to get BlackCat to concentrate her focus exclusively on Earth-bound evidence for it.  3 is the conclusion of that maneuver.  Having discarded everything except Earth-based evidence for ID, she would then move on to 4.  Premises 4 thru 7 use the cautionary lessons of the sailor to demonstrate how it's invalid to extrapolate from the Earth to the rest of the universe.  Earth is far too small and far too uniform a sample to use for such an exercise.  Any sample of evidence from only this little planet falls far, far short of addressing the unexpected diversity and surprising locations of extrasolar planets discovered since 1992.  The final four premises serve to show that even with a valid set of reasonable assumptions in place, ID still cannot be shown to exist anywhere else but Earth.  It can only be assumed to be present 'out there'.  I felt that BlackCat needed to be shown this.  Why?  Because, to understand my objections to ID, she needs to become familiar with the necessary assumptions cosomological science makes about the universe.  Currently, she seems (in my reckoning) to be somewhat confused about what must be assumed in cosmology and what can be concluded.  I hope this helps explain the sequence and purpose of my eleven premises, Botfx.

 

Lastly, please let me address another of your valid points.

Yes, we are indeed collecting data - via all of the methods you've listed.  No problem there.  However Botfx, you really need to look back to post #303 (March 6) to get a proper handle on the way the word 'local' is being used in this discussion.  Trust me... I'm not in denial of, nor denying the origins of the universe.  In fact I'm an avid enthusiast of cosmological science and do my best to keep up with the latest developments.  I subscribe to Scientific American, Sky & Telescope and the Astronomy magazine.  I've been amazed and pleased in equal measure by the news from CERN about the Higgs boson.  As further proof of my positive attitude towards science and scientific discovery, please look here.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55671-heads-up-mark-this-date-and-watch-this-space/

Not long now! 

 

Please let me know if you need any further clarification on anything.  For the record, I appreciate your input and I welcome your constructive criticism.  Keeping each other honest has to be a good thing, in my book.

 

So, thanks again,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok, I'll try to explain why I'm struggling to follow your points in bold. I've tried to address each one these past 2 hours (and have now deleted my attempts), but I'm struggling to voice what I'm thinking. Firstly it strikes me that we can't really discuss the possibility of ID by having a 'local' and 'universal' separation of it. Boftx seems to be touching on this in his post (welcome to this discussion Boftx and thank you for your comments.) If ID were true, then the Big Bang and what was prior (the Superforce or seed), would be an unfolding process of ID: so it would all be ID. I agree that fine-tuning isn't proof of ID but neither does it disprove ID. Can you separate fine-tuning from ID even? It's way past my bed time so I'll try to refer directly to your points tomorrow.

 

Dear BC,

 

As you'll see, I've tried to address entirely-justified Botfx's criticisms.  Reading my reply to him should also be enlightening for you too.  Now you'll know why I've written certain things in the way I did. 

 

I'll be back on-line in a few hours and then I'll address your latest post, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[boftx]

BAA,

 

I am a programmer by trade and received a degree in Philosophy, so I tend to pick apart arguments if I see what (to me) is a glaring error in logic.

 

I'll be looking forward to how you establish the soundness of the first premise, that cosmology refutes FT. Without that proven, the entire chain falls apart. On the other hand, If it is proven correct, then no distinction between local or universal data need be drawn. In fact, the wider the scope of data the stronger the conclusion.

 

Again, I must point to Tillich's concept of God as the ground of being. Although Tillich surely did not intend it as such, the principle leads naturally to a Deist position that ultimately presents no contradictions whatsoever with current cosmological thought in its broadest formulation. But at that point one is presented with 'God' that has no attributes whatsoever other than being the mathematical laws that shape our Universe as we understand it. Applying Occam's Razor would make it seem that there is no need at that point to even consider the concept of God since the exact same results are obtained either way.

 

It will be fun to see how this discussion carries forth.

[BlackCat]

Hey BAA- I appreciate you trying to word things and present these ideas in ways that I can grasp.  Science was something I found very difficult to understand at school.  I was good at the humanities but was terrible at maths (I failed that) and dropped all the other science subjects, so I am very slow to grasp these things.  This is proving a very interesting and stimulating discussion, and it's good that Boftx has joined us .  I'll look forward to your next post.  The penny may take some time to drop I'm afraid, so please be patient if I haven't grasped what you are trying to get over. 

[pantheory]

BlackCat,

 

Since I am new here I just viewed your subject video last night and enjoyed it even though it was very long. I was a math-science major and am a confirmed atheist (Christian through adolescence) so nothing that was in the video meant very much to me, concerning its religious implications. Knowing the general content of Exodus, I did find the video fun and interesting though .

I like the attitude and enthusiam of the Caldwell's, their organization and presentation of their proposed evidence. It seems obvious that they are sincere people, but the basis for their whole argument is the Old Testament and the story of Exodus, which to me is no more than a collection of old, quant, but ridiculous stories. Biblical Genesis is almost a joke, along with Revelations in the New Testament. Exodus is the basis of their analysis and it has very little corroborative evidence in history such as a few names of rulers. Moses etc. in Exodus has no historical verifiable counterpart. The bible and its stories were fun for me to originally read, something like Greek mythology -- but not any better. The New Testament, I think, is no better than the Old Testament concerning having historical corroboration, based upon my studies. Of course I'm no scholar on the subject.

But still, I did like your video and still like to go to church and sing, and appreciate the friendliness and goodwill of many involved in religions in general. Inter-religious bickering (or worse) must be expected, unfortunately

 

Well BC, that's my take on it.  Cheeres

 

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

I am a programmer by trade and received a degree in Philosophy, so I tend to pick apart arguments if I see what (to me) is a glaring error in logic.

 

I'll be looking forward to how you establish the soundness of the first premise, that cosmology refutes FT. Without that proven, the entire chain falls apart.

 

We agree.  I hope I can establish it to your satisfaction.

 

On the other hand, If it is proven correct, then no distinction between local or universal data need be drawn. In fact, the wider the scope of data the stronger the conclusion.

Also agreed... and understood by me, prior to the beginning of this thread.

The need to establish this unnecessary demarcation (local vs. universal/global) arose for reasons already made clear.

.

 

 

Again, I must point to Tillich's concept of God as the ground of being. Although Tillich surely did not intend it as such, the principle leads naturally to a Deist position that ultimately presents no contradictions whatsoever with current cosmological thought in its broadest formulation. But at that point one is presented with 'God' that has no attributes whatsoever other than being the mathematical laws that shape our Universe as we understand it. Applying Occam's Razor would make it seem that there is no need at that point to even consider the concept of God since the exact same results are obtained either way.

 

BlackCat may well be interested to discuss the Deist position with you, Botfx.  I should like to tag along too... if this thread follows that tangent.

 

It will be fun to see how this discussion carries forth.

 

 

Seconded!

[BlackCat]

BlackCat,

 

Since I am new here, I just viewed your subject video last night and enjoyed it even though it was very long. I was a math-science major and am a confirmed atheist (Christian through adolescence) so nothing that was in the video meant very much to me, concerning its religious implications. Knowing the general content of Exodus, I did find the video fun and interesting though .

 

I like the attitude and enthusiam of the Caldwell's, their organization and presentation of their proposed evidence. It seems obvious that they are sincere people, but the basis for their whole argument is the Old Testament and the story of Exodus, which to me is no more than a collection of old, quant, but ridiculous stories. Biblical Genesis is almost a joke, along with Revelations in the New Testament. Exodus is the basis of their analysis and it has very little corroborative evidence in history such as a few names of rulers. Moses etc. in Exodus has no historical verifiable counterpart. The bible and its stories were fun for me to originally read, something like Greek mythology -- but not any better. The New Testament, I think, is no better than the Old Testament concerning having historical corroboration, based upon my studies. Of course I'm no scholar on the subject.

 

But still, I did like your video and still like to go to church and sing, and appreciate the friendliness and goodwill of many involved in religions in general. Inter-religious bickering (or worse) must be expected, unfortunately

 

Well BC, that's my take on it.  Cheeres

 

 

 

 

Hi Forrest, good to see your trip went well and thanks for checking out this thread   That Caldwell video seems a long long time ago now.   With the help of the good folk here, I was able to see how the 'science' the Caldwell's sincerely presented, was not proof of any kind of Exodus or 'miracles' which is what the Exodus story is all about - a bunch of ridiculous fairy stories.  Boy was I blinded to common sense, no doubt because I was fed these stories from a baby and grew to love them and believe them.  As you note, they are sincere people and I don't doubt their intentions are honourable, as mistaken as they undoubtedly are.   

 

I know people who attend church for the songs and the social activities.   When my faith finally evaporated, I couldn't stomach attending church as I knew it was founded on make -believe and I was grieving for the God who never showed up and who I knew was not there so it would have been like rubbing salt in the wounds.  That's me though   

[pantheory]

 

Hi Forrest, good to see your trip went well and thanks for checking out this thread   That Caldwell video seems a long long time ago now.   With the help of the good folk here, I was able to see how the 'science' the Caldwell's sincerely presented, was not proof of any kind of Exodus or 'miracles' which is what the Exodus story is all about - a bunch of ridiculous fairy stories.  Boy was I blinded to common sense, no doubt because I was fed these stories from a baby and grew to love them and believe them.  As you note, they are sincere people and I don't doubt their intentions are honourable, as mistaken as they undoubtedly are.   

 

I know people who attend church for the songs and the social activities.   When my faith finally evaporated, I couldn't stomach attending church as I knew it was founded on make -believe and I was grieving for the God who never showed up and who I knew was not there so it would have been like rubbing salt in the wounds.  That's me though   

 

I understand your predicament about church going. Some people (those that know me well) have told me they think it unwise for me to go to church based upon my beliefs because I might hurt someone with either truthfull comments, or a too-casual attitude. But hey, I like going sometimes to listen to the sermon and sing, and do my best to be agreeable and not offend anyone without directly lying about my beliefs. One of my most successful avoidance tactics when asked what I believe (which was very seldom), is to say that I will tell them in private, and they never ask again   On the rarest of occasions I tell a little white lie concerning my true beliefs (the lack thereof), with no ulterior motive other than not to hurt their feelings.

 

Haven't gone to church now for maybe a couple of years so I think it is now again about time for "Rock of ages."

 

Cheers again,  Forrest

[ExCBooster]

Okay, I've been following this one quietly. I haven't bailed out, I just don't have a lot of time, so, I'll try to keep this short and sweet.

 

Why the size (and uniformity) of the universe (and that heap of creation stories) matters to the question of theism (a really quick analogy you can test at home).

 

Being conscious, on Earth, and with Earth's variety of life, etc. gives us the only evidence of this stuff we can test (so far).

This is like shuffling a deck of playing cards, and drawing a card at random, without looking at the deck. Let's say you got the Three of Hearts. If you know nothing about the deck beforehand, and all you have is the Three of Hearts, you can't know what the other cards are. You don't even know how many there are. It could be all Threes of Hearts. The composition of the deck could be anything. Now, shuffle Three of Hearts back in, and draw again: suppose that the only way you can look at the cards (including the one you drew) is if you have the Ace of Spades (this represents conscious life). The only thing you could ever look at is the Ace of Spades, and you would never know all the other possibilities (not until you got a look at the deck, that is). For a long, LONG time, all we ever had was the Ace of Spades. Until telescopes, we never knew any of the other cards even existed. If you have the Ace of Spades, you might well think: WOW, this card is great, it's all there is, and it must have been meant just for me. However, once you get a look at the deck, you see that there are LOTS of other cards, and that leap was, in fact, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The only one we can see is the Ace of Spades, so of course it's nothing special that we have it. It wasn't meant for us. It's the only way we could observe anything at all. The universe (and all the planets and galaxies therein) is like that deck of cards. A HUGE deck of cards. We can see this plainly, now that we can use our technology to observe the vastness of space. Earth is nothing special, as planets go. We know we have the Ace of Spades, but does anyone else? What about other planets, with maybe conscious aliens (they got an Ace of Spades too). What are the odds that they would believe in a Christian God? To answer this, we just have to look at our own planet: we have other analogues, in other cultures, and see that other cultures interpret having the Ace of Spades differently. If conscious beings (of the same species, even) can't agree on what it means, the chances of the Christian interpretation being objectively, self-evidently CORRECT is vanishingly small. Teeny-tiny. Ludicrously unlikely. So, that's why astronomy, cosmology and myth are so useful to look at in combination.

[bornagainathiest]

Back again!

 

Sorry for the delay BlackCat, seeing as I said I was going to be just a few hours.  Maureen and I received some distressing news about a close personal friend, just after I replied to Botfx's message.  Digesting and dealing with that took precedence over matters in this thread, as I'm sure you'll understand.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Okay then, to business...

 

Cosmology refutes the Fine-Tuned Universe argument.

 

Now, as I mentioned to you and Botfx yesterday, my dialog with you has involved a less-than-painstaking approach to the explanations and arguments that I've been presenting.  I've been generalizing, simplifying and summarizing a great deal and this has inevitably led me to present less-than-perfect lines of argument.  This is also true of the emboldened statement, above.  Now I will explain it, using all of the accuracy and attention to detail that I can muster.

 

At first glance what seems to be happening here is this...

Something intrinsic to Cosmological science, when applied to the Fine-Tuned Universe argument, refutes it.

The statement appears to function, like this...

(Something within) Cosmology ---> (when applied to) ---> the FTUa  =  the FTUa being refuted.

 

However, I've been skimming over many things and generalizing a lot, for the sake of your understanding, haven't I, BC?  Which means that the above process is not an exact description of the complex issues involved here.

 

Here's one item that I skimmed over.

When I say that cosmology refutes the FTUa, I mean the FTUa, as promoted by those with a religious agenda. 

I.e., the Christian apologists behind the Intelligent Design movement.  I have no beef with those scientists who accept the FTUa for purely scientific reasons and who draw no theological conclusions from it.  Have I been disingenuous in doing this?  I hope not.  I also hope that you won't think I've been acting less-than-honestly with you, BC.  Since moving on from the Caldwell's claims, the main thrust of this whole thread has been about the theological implications of ID.  I therefore decided to look only at ID from the viewpoint of those Christians behind it.  I hope you'll conclude that I was justified, in doing this. 

 

Now, here's some background detail about the FTUa that you and I haven't covered yet.  We would have done so in due time - which I had planned all along.  But you've been struggling with some difficult concepts lately and I deemed it expedient to shelve this, in favor of dealing with the issues in hand.  This background information is now very pertinent and vital to your understanding of my line of argument.  So please read on.

 

Christian apologists use scientific data from many sources (particle physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, etc.) in the FTUa.  They contend that the universe is so finely-tuned for life that this requires the hand of an Intelligent Designer.  They attempt to make a direct causal link between three things. 

1. What naturalistic science tells us about reality. 

2. Their conclusion - that this natural reality has a supernatural cause. 

3. The reason for this cause ...us.

 

It's item #3 that I do have a beef with.

 

If they use cosmological data in the FTUa, the Christians must abide by the groundrules of cosmology, later on in their line of argument.  Not to do so is to generate an internal contradiction within the argument.  Any argument that has internal contradictions cannot be valid.  Please note BC, the scientists who draw no theological conclusions from the FTUa are exempt from this.  It is the Christian apologists who subvert cosmology like this, not those scientists.  This explains why I wrote... Cosmology refutes the FTUa, as promoted by those with a religious agenda.

 

I also wrote that my statement appears to function like this...

(Something within) Cosmology ---> (when applied to) ---> the FTUa  =  the FTUa being refuted.

 

However, now that I've declared that it's only the Christians who play fast and loose with the rules of cosmology, here's how my statement reads, with this new information taken into account.

 

(Christians subvert) Cosmology ---> (rendering) --> the FTUa ---> (invalid)  = the FTUa is refuted (by the Christians themselves).

 

Or, written in plain English...

The Christians break the rules of cosmology, not in their citing of the comsological data, but in the causal conclusions they later draw from this data.  Therefore, since the data was gathered within the proper context of cosmology's rules and principles, it's improper and dishonest to drop those rules later on in the argument.  If you cite data, you are also obliged to stick to the principles involved in the gathering of that data.  In a nutshell, if you use cosmology you have to stick to it's ALL of it's governing principles ALL the way thru your argument.  Not doing so sabotages your own argument by rendering it invalid.

 

Which is why I made the claim that Cosmology refutes the FTUa.

Now we can see that it is, effectively, the other way round.  The Christians refute their own argument by misusing cosmology.  BC, I hope you can now see that if I'd taken this painstakingly accurate approach (in only the first premise of my line of argument) you'd have found it very hard going?

If you've followed this, the next logical step must be for me to make must be to make good on my latest claim.  That Christian apologists violate the governing principles of cosmological science.  To do that, I'll be referencing this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

I'll be doing so later on in the day (I promise!) when I have the time to do this issue justice.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To Botfx...

 

Thanks for your patience too.  Please hold nothing back and critique my words without mercy!  I welcome your input, because should I err, I'll probably need others to bring these glitches to my notice.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To ExCBooster...

 

Right on the money! 

You've grasped exactly the main thrust of my argument. 

 

I thank and salute you! 

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Okay, I've been following this one quietly. I haven't bailed out, I just don't have a lot of time, so, I'll try to keep this short and sweet.

 

Why the size (and uniformity) of the universe (and that heap of creation stories) matters to the question of theism (a really quick analogy you can test at home).

 

Being conscious, on Earth, and with Earth's variety of life, etc. gives us the only evidence of this stuff we can test (so far).

This is like shuffling a deck of playing cards, and drawing a card at random, without looking at the deck. Let's say you got the Three of Hearts. If you know nothing about the deck beforehand, and all you have is the Three of Hearts, you can't know what the other cards are. You don't even know how many there are. It could be all Threes of Hearts. The composition of the deck could be anything. Now, shuffle Three of Hearts back in, and draw again: suppose that the only way you can look at the cards (including the one you drew) is if you have the Ace of Spades (this represents conscious life). The only thing you could ever look at is the Ace of Spades, and you would never know all the other possibilities (not until you got a look at the deck, that is). For a long, LONG time, all we ever had was the Ace of Spades. Until telescopes, we never knew any of the other cards even existed. If you have the Ace of Spades, you might well think: WOW, this card is great, it's all there is, and it must have been meant just for me. However, once you get a look at the deck, you see that there are LOTS of other cards, and that leap was, in fact, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The only one we can see is the Ace of Spades, so of course it's nothing special that we have it. It wasn't meant for us. It's the only way we could observe anything at all. The universe (and all the planets and galaxies therein) is like that deck of cards. A HUGE deck of cards. We can see this plainly, now that we can use our technology to observe the vastness of space. Earth is nothing special, as planets go. We know we have the Ace of Spades, but does anyone else? What about other planets, with maybe conscious aliens (they got an Ace of Spades too). What are the odds that they would believe in a Christian God? To answer this, we just have to look at our own planet: we have other analogues, in other cultures, and see that other cultures interpret having the Ace of Spades differently. If conscious beings (of the same species, even) can't agree on what it means, the chances of the Christian interpretation being objectively, self-evidently CORRECT is vanishingly small. Teeny-tiny. Ludicrously unlikely. So, that's why astronomy, cosmology and myth are so useful to look at in combination.

 

I agree

[Joshpantera]

One can always have some fun by suggesting that evolution is a natural and logical consequence of ID.

What's funny is that if any ID proponents decided to go that route then they'd be forced into admitting that evolution and natural selection do occur after all therefore proving their first line of argumentation against NS completely wrong and unfounded.

 

Sort of like what happened with the Young Earth and Old Earth creationist camps. The latter arose from having to buckle under the pressure of growing evidence to the contrary of a young earth and then devise ways of looking at the creation account symbolically instead of literally. To the former the latter became heretical and influenced by Satan to conform with the "ways of the world." I'm sure the same would be true of ID proponents letting down their guard and accepting NS as part of Gods plan in order to try and better conform with the evidence - they be labeled heretics right from the get go.

 

But seriously, this goes back to the question of what was the intelligence that kicked off the evolution of the universe which evenutally rendered life?

 

If we conclude on a being of some sort, then what intelligence was behind it's existence, in order for it to be behind our existence?

 

How far back does it go, the necessity of one intelligence to render another?

 

The other way is the natural urge idea which doesn't require any intelligence at all.

 

Suppose that existence exists simply because absolute non-existence is impossible. And in an eternity of perpetual existence of some type, in some form, there is a constant and unmistakable natural based urge towards the possibility of self awareness. This self awareness is the sum total of many types of lesser awareness taking place within the material universe.

 

No fixed being of great intelligence required to kick off anything.

 

Just an endless and beginningless cosmic sea of existence with the ability to become self aware via the combination of it's own natural properites via NS trial and error attempts that may or may not be successful depending on the circumstances...

[BlackCat]

Looking forward to reading everyone's replies.  Been visiting a sick relative in hospital this evening, so won't have a chance to reply til tomorrow, hopefully.  Catch you all soon.....

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again BlackCat. 

 

...and Botfx, Josh, et al. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

 

I would like to draw your attention to what this Wiki page says about the status and role of the observer, in relation to the Cosmological Principle. (Hereafter, the CP)

"The first implicit qualification is that 'observers' means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, 'the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."

 

Who Does the CP Apply To?

Any sentient life form, human or alien, capable of observing the universe will observe it exactly as we do.  Please note that this is not saying that aliens will have eyes and ears just like ours.  No.  Applying the CP uniformly and impartially everywhere in the universe means that the all of the phenomenon we humans observe will also be observed by intelligent aliens too.  So, they will also observe planets, stars and galaxies... because these things exist everywhere in the universe. 

 

The CP makes no special concessions as to who (or what?) is doing the observing.  In the CP there are no preferences, no hierarchies and no special conditions.  Just as the universe is assumed to be uniform in all places, so all observers are assumed to hold the same, uniform status.  All observers are always equal. This basic assumption of strict neutrality and complete uniformity underpins all of cosmological science.  In fact, ALL of science follows this kind of principle.

 

Anyone, anywhere should be able to perform the same experiment with the same materials and instruments and derive the same results.  The identity of the experimenter, their gender, social status, race, religious beliefs or any other factor, should make no difference to the expected results of the experiment.  This is how science works.  Nobody is in a priveleged position and nobody holds a special status.  Strict neutrality and complete uniformity must prevail.

 

How the Christians Subvert the Role of the Observer.

Now that I've shown that, according to the CP, ALL observers enjoy equal and uniform status, let's look at how the Christians side-step this.  In my previous message I stated that the Christian apologists who use the Fine-Tuned Universe argument attempt to make a causal link between three things.

1. What naturalistic science tells us about reality.

2. Their conclusion - that this reality has a supernatural cause.

3. The reason for this cause ...us.

 

All the cosmological data they rely upon in #1 was gathered by human 'observers'.

The CP enforces strict neutrality and uniformity among ALL observers, human or otherwise.

There are no special conditions which favor one group of observers over another.

 

But look at #3!

The Christians claim that we humans are the reason God created the universe. 

Do you see how they've shifted the goalposts, BC? 

Now, humans are no longer co-equal observers, but the CAUSE.

 

That change of status violates the fundamental rule of the CP - neutrality and uniformity.

Now humans have a special and favored status and are no longer co-equal observers.

Now, humans have been elevated to the status of being the sole reason why the universe exists!

 

The Christians dishonestly change human status between #1 and #3.

In #1, all the data they rely for the FTUa was gathered with humans as observers - in accordance with the CP.

By the time we reach #3, humans have ceased to observers - not in accordance with the CP.

 

Can you now see why I wrote that it is the Christians themselves who refute their own argument?

They break the rules of cosmology (the Cosmological Principle's requirement for equal status for all observers) which introduces a contradiction into their own argument.  They refute themselves by not playing by the rules.

 

BlackCat, I hope I've explained this well enough and, as usual, if there's anything that you'd like clarification on, please just let me know.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[BlackCat]

Hi guys- read your posts.  Some good points being made.

 

BAA- thank you for explaining what you meant by 'cosmology refutes the fine-tuned argument' or rather 'how Christians subvert cosmology rendering the FTUa invalid'.  I think I follow what you are saying.  Two 'thoughts' occur to me though:

 

1. By wondering about 'before' the Big Bang, or wondering about 'reasons' that lie outside the universe, or by supposing there is an Observer outside the universe who is not subject to what we understand of the CP, would this put a limit on the CP, or how much we can know of reality or know why things are arranged (fine-tuned) the way they are?  

 

2. Ken Miller the ardent ID critic and practicing Catholic, in his book 'Finding Darwin's God', doesn't take the scientific data and conclude that God created the universe in order for us humans to eventually evolve.  As I read his book and he explained about evolution etc, I wondered how he as a theist, could reject ID (by ID I mean any involvement by God in our existence) completely.  He seems to (if memory serves me right) advocate a God who is there, but who didn't cause the Big Bang, but who 'works' with what unexpectedly came about due to the Big Bang.  So Miller, a Christian, has an Observer outside the universe, who didn't 'tamper' with or have any direct involvement in the cause of the Big Bang or what resulted from the Big Bang.  But now we're here, He does give us His attention!  I hope I haven't misrepresented Dr Miller.  How do you view this kind of reasoning?

 

I'm still struggling to understand how, if I conclude that there is an intelligence behind the universe, or that it is responsible for the Big Bang, and that intelligence knew what would result from such a Big Bang ie life: plants, insects, animals and humans, (so not assuming only humans are the reason for the Big Bang) that this way of thinking, violates the CP.  By looking 'outside' the universe you can't help violate the CP surely?  That only applies to inside the universe??? 

 

Be brutal- am I talking a load of rubbish? 

[Joshpantera]

BC, your question makes me wonder what exactly people expect when they assume an observer outside of the universe, or hubble volume if you will. For instance, the recent spring equinox announcement about inflationary theory, the universe being older than previously imagined, and the implications of this data leading to infinite universes beyond our own has now hit the general public.

 

So where is this outside of our universe observer to be found?

 

Is this a living being that exists in the pure void of space inbetween worlds within the universes, or would a living observing being have to dwell on a living planet, with something to breathe, something to drink, something to eat, etc.? Doesn't make very much sense to have a being of any type sitting in pure non-atmospheric space just beyond the universe making observations or poking a finger at a cosmic seed and causing the BB to occur.

 

You get the general drift.

 

I don't think that people put very much thought into what exactly they're actually trying to propose when proposing these deistic type of suggestions. It's just left kind of vague as if it's perfectly likely to find a being living just outside the universe and perhaps looking in to see how things are going. Sort of like those Jesus pictures where he's standing just outside the planet in space looking down at the world. The more you dwell on this question the more unreasonable deistic type reasoning may become...

[bornagainathiest]

Hi guys- read your posts.  Some good points being made.

 

BAA- thank you for explaining what you meant by 'cosmology refutes the fine-tuned argument' or rather 'how Christians subvert cosmology rendering the FTUa invalid'.  I think I follow what you are saying.  Two 'thoughts' occur to me though:

 

1. By wondering about 'before' the Big Bang, or wondering about 'reasons' that lie outside the universe, or by supposing there is an Observer outside the universe who is not subject to what we understand of the CP, would this put a limit on the CP, or how much we can know of reality or know why things are arranged (fine-tuned) the way they are?  

 

Be brutal- am I talking a load of rubbish? 

 

No BC.  Not at all. 

 

You're simply grappling with what are (for you) radically new ideas... and these take time and effort to assimilate and comprehend.  As Josh's already mentioned, you pick things up quickly.  Don't forget that I've been reading and thinking about this stuff since my teens.  Bhim's making a career out of it.  Thought2Much, Botfx, Josh and Pantheory are well-versed in it too.  So, we've all got a bit of a head start on you. 

 

Oops! That's the wrong image to use.  This isn't a race.  Small movements, ok?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1.

Yes, I know it's tempting and habitual to use words like 'before' and 'outside', when talking about the universe, BC.

But there's still no compelling evidence for there being a before or an outside.  Both of these words describe time and space, which is just fine after the Big Bang or within the limits of the universe.  According to standard theory, space and time are reckoned to have come into existence at that event.  If that's so, then there was no before and there is no outside.  At least, not in the everyday sense that ordinary folk like us can understand.

 

When we get round to discussing the Superforce and the universe's 'Seed', we'll be going where Josh indicated ... the realm of mystery.  Currently, there are many theories about what might have caused the Big Bang, but no real evidence.  Today's results from the Planck probe... http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-109 ...tell us something about the very early phases of the universe's evolution after the primordial seed fractured.  You notice that I keep saying, 'after' BC...?  After the Big Bang, never before it?

 

I do this because, if space and time did originate from 'something', that something is probably eternal and infinite.  How can I use words like before and outside in the context of eternity and infinity?  (Rhetorical question!)  In a nutshell, I can't.  They don't apply.  They lose their meaning.  Stephen Hawking likened this conundrum to a traveller reaching the North Pole and trying to go further North.  It simply can't be done! 

Frustrating... isn't it?

 

Anyway, the best I can do to answer #1 is this.

How much we can know about reality seems to be limited to what our minds can encompass.  If we can't imagine it or if it's beyond the scope of the human brain, we may never know the full truth of reality.  If reality (in the shape of our universe and others) emerges from a domain that we can't comprehend, then THAT is a brick wall we'll forever be banging our heads up against!

.

.

.

But all is not lost, BC!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/universe-age-planck-space-probe-date-big-bang_n_2922818.html

Stryper was good enough to post this.

Even if we can't see or investigate that hidden, eternal domain of the Superforce, we can investigate what came from it.  And look where our investigations seem to be pointing!  An infinite ensemble of universes, otherwise known as a Multiverse.

 

"To make inflation work, that split-second of expansion may not stop elsewhere like it does in the observable universe, Albrecht and Steinhardt said. That means there are places where expansion is zooming fast, with an infinite number of universes that stretch to infinity, they said."

 

Do you grasp the enormity of what these guys are saying, BC?

 

Basically this...

Almost 14 billion years ago 'something' gave rise to our reality.

It sprang instantly into existence and Inflated to a size at least 1,000 times larger than we can see.

This ultra-rapid phase of Inflation then halted in our region of space.

But, far beyond the limits of our observable universe, inflation is continuing to this day!  

And will probably never cease...

Inflation will never cease inflating (creating from scratch) universes like ours, every split second... forever and ever!

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

I don't think I'll address your other questions right now, if that's ok with you, BC. 

You've got more than enough new ideas to try and wrap your head around, huh?

However, my mind is already turning over the theological ramifications of this news and the new Planck data certainly will affect our exploration of ID.

 

Enough... already!

 

I'll get back to you sometime tomorrow.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[BlackCat]

Josh- 'outside' the universe is maybe the wrong way to understand this possible 'Observer'.  I have an idea of our reality, or whatever exists (multiverses?) as being part of this Observer.  I don't see how it could be separate in any way.  To be honest I don't think I've got a very good reason to suppose there is anything 'beyond' the universe/s, other than wishful thinking.............

 

BAA- I'll re-read your post and digest it. 

[Joshpantera]

I was just pointing out thought provoking ways of analyzing your word usage, BC. I'm sure you agree that the outside of the universe concept can get a little silly when you get right down to it.

 

What you're striving towards sounds more akin to observer effect type of issues and not necessarily deistic notions of a transcendent observing being entirely outside of or separate from this universe now that you've expanding on it some more. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6HWbs11zdU

 

We might want to ponder how the newly released inflation cosmological data applies to things like the observer effect and quantum entanglement just for the sake of conversation.

[BlackCat]

No BC.  Not at all. 

 

You're simply grappling with what are (for you) radically new ideas... and these take time and effort to assimilate and comprehend.  As Josh's already mentioned, you pick things up quickly.  Don't forget that I've been reading and thinking about this stuff since my teens.  Bhim's making a career out of it.  Thought2Much, Botfx, Josh and Pantheory are well-versed in it too.  So, we've all got a bit of a head start on you. 

 

Oops! That's the wrong image to use.  This isn't a race.  Small movements, ok?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1.

Yes, I know it's tempting and habitual to use words like 'before' and 'outside', when talking about the universe, BC.

But there's still no compelling evidence for there being a before or an outside.  Both of these words describe time and space, which is just fine after the Big Bang or within the limits of the universe.  According to standard theory, space and time are reckoned to have come into existence at that event.  If that's so, then there was no before and there is no outside.  At least, not in the everyday sense that ordinary folk like us can understand.

 

When we get round to discussing the Superforce and the universe's 'Seed', we'll be going where Josh indicated ... the realm of mystery.  Currently, there are many theories about what might have caused the Big Bang, but no real evidence.  Today's results from the Planck probe... http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-109 ...tell us something about the very early phases of the universe's evolution after the primordial seed fractured.  You notice that I keep saying, 'after' BC...?  After the Big Bang, never before it?

 

I do this because, if space and time did originate from 'something', that something is probably eternal and infinite.  How can I use words like before and outside in the context of eternity and infinity?  (Rhetorical question!)  In a nutshell, I can't.  They don't apply.  They lose their meaning.  Stephen Hawking likened this conundrum to a traveller reaching the North Pole and trying to go further North.  It simply can't be done! 

Frustrating... isn't it?

 

Anyway, the best I can do to answer #1 is this.

How much we can know about reality seems to be limited to what our minds can encompass.  If we can't imagine it or if it's beyond the scope of the human brain, we may never know the full truth of reality.  If reality (in the shape of our universe and others) emerges from a domain that we can't comprehend, then THAT is a brick wall we'll forever be banging our heads up against!

.

.

.

But all is not lost, BC!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/universe-age-planck-space-probe-date-big-bang_n_2922818.html

Stryper was good enough to post this.

Even if we can't see or investigate that hidden, eternal domain of the Superforce, we can investigate what came from it.  And look where our investigations seem to be pointing!  An infinite ensemble of universes, otherwise known as a Multiverse.

 

"To make inflation work, that split-second of expansion may not stop elsewhere like it does in the observable universe, Albrecht and Steinhardt said. That means there are places where expansion is zooming fast, with an infinite number of universes that stretch to infinity, they said."

 

Do you grasp the enormity of what these guys are saying, BC?

 

Basically this...

Almost 14 billion years ago 'something' gave rise to our reality.

It sprang instantly into existence and Inflated to a size at least 1,000 times larger than we can see.

This ultra-rapid phase of Inflation then halted in our region of space.

But, far beyond the limits of our observable universe, inflation is continuing to this day!  

And will probably never cease...

Inflation will never cease inflating (creating from scratch) universes like ours, every split second... forever and ever!

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

I don't think I'll address your other questions right now, if that's ok with you, BC. 

You've got more than enough new ideas to try and wrap your head around, huh?

However, my mind is already turning over the theological ramifications of this news and the new Planck data certainly will affect our exploration of ID.

 

Enough... already!

 

I'll get back to you sometime tomorrow.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Hi BAA- the above post has been very helpful.  The more I consider all these amazing scientific findings, the more it strikes me as illogical to consider a 'supernatural' being who is responsible for the universe/s.  If I may reword the apostle Paul's famous saying:

 

''For since we now know how the creation of the world came about (via the Big Bang) nature's invisible qualities--its eternal power and  nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been discovered about the universe, so that people are without excuse.''

 

Josh, I'll check out that video when I get a chance, although I suspect it will be a bit too deep for me.