Is The Universe Finetuned For Life Or Is God Omnipotent?

[Vigile]

 

You mean, God is not omnipotent in your sense of the word "omnipotence."

 

 

I mean he's not omnipotent in the biblical sense of the word.  Either he can do anything as Jesus suggested or he is limited. 

 

Word games and equivocated definitions can't get you out of this corner you painted yourself into. 

 

 

A logical possibility is anything not self-contradictory.

 

Did you get that definition from Ken Hovind?  Probably not a good idea to laugh when you are spouting nonsense, but I'll leave that up to you. 

 

Avoiding self contradiction is one facet of propositional logic, but logic is certainly more robust than this one basic rule.

 

 

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/

Propositional logic largely involves studying logical connectives such as the words “and” and “or” and the rules determining the truth-values of the propositions they are used to join, as well as what these rules mean for the validity of arguments, and such logical relationships between statements as being consistent or inconsistent with one another, as well as logical properties of propositions, such as being tautologically true, being contingent, and being self-contradictory.

 

[Vigile]

 

It certainly is logically possible to violate the laws of physics. To walk for a long time on water, for example, is not self-contradictory.

 

But the claim is not falsifiable. 

 

Is your claim falsifiable?

 

 

Which claim is that? 

[Vigile]

 

 

One serious question. (And sorry I lol'd, Vigile, that was so immature.) Could the laws of physics have been different?

 

 

Assuming a magic, all-powerful god, sure, why not?  Anything is possible when you assume magic.

 

Considering that I don't believe in magic, in the reality we live in, the laws just are what they are as far as I can tell. Do you mean to ask me could we survive this planet and this universe were the laws different?  Probably not, but perhaps or perhaps not something else could.  You can't survive where fish do and vice versa, right? 

[Badger]

You mean, God is not omnipotent in your sense of the word "omnipotence."

 

I mean he's not omnipotent in the biblical sense of the word.  Either he can do anything as Jesus suggested or he is limited. 

 

Word games and equivocated definitions can't get you out of this corner you painted yourself into. 

 

I do not hear Jesus saying that God can do logically impossible tasks. To repeat the obvious: no being can do a task that is nothing. Not anything; no single thing.

 

A logical possibility is anything not self-contradictory.

 

Did you get that definition from Ken Hovind?  Probably not a good idea to laugh when you are spouting nonsense, but I'll leave that up to you. 

 

It is the definition of logical possibility.

[Badger]

 

 

It certainly is logically possible to violate the laws of physics. To walk for a long time on water, for example, is not self-contradictory.

 

But the claim is not falsifiable. 

 

Is your claim falsifiable?

 

 

Which claim is that? 

 

Your claim that my the claim is not falsifiable.

[falemon]

 

 

Your claim that my the claim is not falsifiable.

 

His claim is falsifiable by this:

 

"Vigile's claim is false if Badger's claim is falsifiable, which would be identified by a falsifiable ... " oh why do I even bother.

[Badger]

One serious question. (And sorry I lol'd, Vigile, that was so immature.) Could the laws of physics have been different?

 

Assuming a magic, all-powerful god, sure, why not?  Anything is possible when you assume magic.

 

Considering that I don't believe in magic, in the reality we live in, the laws just are what they are as far as I can tell. Do you mean to ask me could we survive this planet and this universe were the laws different?  Probably not, but perhaps or perhaps not something else could.  You can't survive where fish do and vice versa, right? 

 

Let me rephrase my question. Are the laws of physics necessary truths? Could (say) the law of gravity or laws of thermodynamics either not exist at all or been different? What do you think?

[falemon]

@Badger: you mentioned walking on water, what real life miracles have you seen on that level?

 

There you make reference to an unverified account that has no strength in truth than any other whimsical made up idea.

[Badger]

@Badger: you mentioned walking on water, what real life miracles have you seen on that level?

 

There you make reference to an unverified account that has no strength in truth than any other whimsical made up idea.

 

I made reference to logical possibility. Nothing else.

[Vigile]

I do not hear Jesus saying that God can do logically impossible tasks. To repeat the obvious: no being can do a task that is nothing. Not anything; no single thing.

 

 

You don't know your bible very well. The context of this claim was in reference to the difficulty of a camel moving through the eye of a needle (an impossibility).  Anything in this case is anything, including the impossible. 

 

 

It is the definition of logical possibility.

 

I see at this point you are content to just define things for your own benefit as opposed to have a reasonable discussion.  I don't see our conversation going anywhere as a result. 

[Badger]

I do not hear Jesus saying that God can do logically impossible tasks. To repeat the obvious: no being can do a task that is nothing. Not anything; no single thing.

 

 

You don't know your bible very well. The context of this claim was in reference to the difficulty of a camel moving through the eye of a needle (an impossibility).  Anything in this case is anything, including the impossible. 

 

So Jesus was wrong? Does that now prove that omnipotence as maximal power is absurd. Of course not.

 

It is the definition of logical possibility.

 

I see at this point you are content to just define things for your own benefit as opposed to have a reasonable discussion.  I don't see our conversation going anywhere as a result. 

 

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

[Vigile]

 

 

 

It certainly is logically possible to violate the laws of physics. To walk for a long time on water, for example, is not self-contradictory.

 

But the claim is not falsifiable. 

 

Is your claim falsifiable?

 

 

Which claim is that? 

 

Your claim that my the claim is not falsifiable.

 

 

Now you're just being obtuse.

 

Of course it's falsifiable.  You can show me your claim is indeed falsifiable, falsifying my claim.  I, OTH, can't show you that god can't walk on water because it supposedly happened 2,000 years ago and there is no evidence for it or against it (given it's a claim that physical law was temporarily suspended). Claims that are not falsifiable are logically and scientifically invalid.  

[falemon]

 

@Badger: you mentioned walking on water, what real life miracles have you seen on that level?

 

There you make reference to an unverified account that has no strength in truth than any other whimsical made up idea.

 

I made reference to logical possibility. Nothing else.

 

 

 

Possible based on what logic exactly?

 

Note: to be logically possible there must exist logical statements, implications and rules for which it is possible to construct the said statement

[Vigile]

 

I do not hear Jesus saying that God can do logically impossible tasks. To repeat the obvious: no being can do a task that is nothing. Not anything; no single thing.

 

 

You don't know your bible very well. The context of this claim was in reference to the difficulty of a camel moving through the eye of a needle (an impossibility).  Anything in this case is anything, including the impossible. 

 

So Jesus was wrong? Does that now prove that omnipotence as maximal power is absurd. Of course not.

 

It is the definition of logical possibility.

 

I see at this point you are content to just define things for your own benefit as opposed to have a reasonable discussion.  I don't see our conversation going anywhere as a result. 

 

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

 

 

As I said, you've turned this into an argument of semantics.  You choose the definitions most suitable to you when you find yourself painted into a corner.  Maximal power, for example, is undefined, so of course it allows you to slip past the problem created by the definition of the word omni as accepted by most, including xians and Jesus himself.

 

When I show you the rules of logic are not limited to the idea of contradiction, you search for a definition that most closely supports your claim.  This is disingenuous and doesn't support the idea you are willing to have a reasonable discussion. 

 

I'm done here, but just for shits and giggles, if I claim that I like liver, it is not a self-contradictory statement, but it is also a statement that is untrue. 

[Vigile]

 

 

 

Your claim that my the claim is not falsifiable.

 

His claim is falsifiable by this:

 

"Vigile's claim is false if Badger's claim is falsifiable, which would be identified by a falsifiable ... " oh why do I even bother.

 

 

Yeah, I usually avoid arguing with xians for this reason, but every year or so I decide to give it a whack and see if I can find one willing to be intellectually honest.  Foiled again, so I'm out. 

[Badger]

It certainly is logically possible to violate the laws of physics. To walk for a long time on water, for example, is not self-contradictory.

 

But the claim is not falsifiable. 

 

Is your claim falsifiable?

 

 

Which claim is that? 

 

Your claim that my the claim is not falsifiable.

 

 

Now you're just being obtuse.

 

Of course it's falsifiable.  You can show me your claim is indeed falsifiable, falsifying my claim.  I, OTH, can't show you that god can't walk on water because it supposedly happened 2,000 years ago and there is no evidence for it or against it. Claims that are not falsifiable are logically and scientifically invalid.

 

Oh... what God walking on water has anything to do with my claim? We can show that claim is not logically possible by showing that it is self-contradictory.

[Ravenstar]

Hi Ravenstar, surely you don't mean that before Aristotle, something could be A and not-A simultaneously under the same set of relations?  I'm imagining our trying to communicate with other intelligent life in the universe, and I can't conceive how we can do it if our communications, and theirs, aren't governed by basic laws of thought like the principles of identity, non-contradiction, etc.  I don't know quantum physics, so this may be off, but:  aren't the conclusions of quantum physics pretty much "what the math tells us?"  If the math tells us stuff, and math is a tautological system that adheres to basic laws of thought, then paradoxes that come up in quantum physics don't apply to the laws of thought by which we try to discourse about those paradoxes. 

 

??

No.. I'm not. Reality was, long before Aristotle. What I'm suggesting is that the methodology (formal I guess) was defined and determined by the human mind... (Aristotle was just one of the first to formalize it) and not something, like gravity, that just is - and outside of us that we discover as a fundamental rule of the physical universe.

 

You made an interesting correlation with mathematics. Mathematics isn't a law either - it's a way to describe things..and is 'man-made' in a way,  the same way logic isn't a law but a way to deduct and reason out those laws.

 

Logic helps us put order to our thinking about things our senses tell us..so we can come to reasonable conclusions, that's all it is.

 

Does that make sense?

 

It's a pretty common thought that mathematics may be the ONLY language/system that would be useful in communicating with an extraterrestrial species. It's a form of measuring and describing that is precise, consistent and not laden with social or cultural or even species/environmental overtones. It describes relationships as well. It is a basic matrix, or framework for describing anything.

[falemon]

 

Oh... what God walking on water has anything to do with my claim? We can show that claim is not logically possible by showing that it is self-contradictory.

 

As an A grade logic and reasoning student, trust me, that is not a valid falsifiability. False claims don't have to be self-contradictory, so not being self-contradictory in no way makes something logically sound.

 

However, if you include all known, verified and accepted statements to your logical model then that model itself falls apart. We know laws of buoyancy, that provides the law that walking on water is not possible.

 

In regards to violations of physics being possible, is there even evidence of this? And my question, which you've not answered, is exactly what logic (or logics) suggest violating the laws of physics is in any way possible?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that walking on water is physically possible, despite physics showing it to be impossible (see above point)? Are you then suggesting that without any evidence or declared logic that there exists logic somewhere to make violations of physics and nature possible despite there being no reproducible way to achieve this?

[Badger]

I do not hear Jesus saying that God can do logically impossible tasks. To repeat the obvious: no being can do a task that is nothing. Not anything; no single thing.

 

 

You don't know your bible very well. The context of this claim was in reference to the difficulty of a camel moving through the eye of a needle (an impossibility).  Anything in this case is anything, including the impossible. 

 

So Jesus was wrong? Does that now prove that omnipotence as maximal power is absurd. Of course not.

 

It is the definition of logical possibility.

 

I see at this point you are content to just define things for your own benefit as opposed to have a reasonable discussion.  I don't see our conversation going anywhere as a result. 

 

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

 

 

As I said, you've turned this into an argument of semantics.  You choose the definitions most suitable to you when you find yourself painted into a corner.  Maximal power, for example, is undefined, so of course it allows you to slip past the problem created by the definition of the word omni as accepted by most, including xians and Jesus himself.

 

When I show you the rules of logic are not limited to the idea of contradiction, you search for a definition that most closely supports your claim.  This is disingenuous and doesn't support the idea you are willing to have a reasonable discussion. 

 

I'm done here, but just for shits and giggles, if I claim that I like liver, it is not a self-contradictory statement, but it is also a statement that is untrue. 

 

This is nothing but ad hominem.

 

Note: I do not disagree with what you quoted. It just do not give definition of logical possibility at all.

[Vigile]

 

Mathematics isn't a law either - it's a way to describe things..and is 'man-made' in a way,  the same way logic isn't a law but a way to deduct and reason out those laws.

 

If I have 3 apples in one hand and 2 apples in my other hand, I have 5 apples.  This was true before numeric symbols were ever conceived and it would be true on the planets Helicon or Gaia even if beings there had never been exposed to human mathmatics.  Math just gave us a language useful to talk about this reality. 

[Badger]

Oh... what God walking on water has anything to do with my claim? We can show that claim is not logically possible by showing that it is self-contradictory. 

As an A grade logic and reasoning student, trust me, that is not a valid falsifiability. False claims don't have to be self-contradictory, so not being self-contradictory in no way makes something logically sound.

 

You are right. But I am talking about logical possibility, not about soundness.

 

 

However, if you include all known, verified and accepted statements to your logical model then that model itself falls apart. We know laws of buoyancy, that provides the law that walking on water is not possible.

 

In regards to violations of physics being possible, is there even evidence of this? And my question, which you've not answered, is exactly what logic (or logics) suggest violating the laws of physics is in any way possible?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that walking on water is physically possible, despite physics showing it to be impossible (see above point)? Are you then suggesting that without any evidence or declared logic that there exists logic somewhere to make violations of physics and nature possible despite there being no reproducible way to achieve this?

 

No, I am not saying that walking on water is physically possible. I said it is logically possible. And it is logically possible if the laws of physics are not necessary truths (I do not think they are).

[bornagainathiest]

 

And I am looking forward to your response to me, Badger. 

 

Stop dodging and talk cosmology with me.

 

Gedalia, Jenkins and Perez haven't just altered the weak nuclear force by a few decimal places - they've removed it completely from their calculations and still produced viable, life-bearing universes.

 

How can they do this?

 

How is this possible, if the Fine-Tuning Argument says that even the tiniest adjustment of the fundamental constants MUST lead to 'dead' universes or unstable ones that disintegrate or re-collapse instantly after their birth?

 

Please answer.

 

BAA.

 

I do not have any idea what it is about.

 

 

Then let me enlighten you, Badger.

 

The Fine-Tuned Universe argument posits that the fundamental constants of this universe are so very finely-tuned as to clearly indicate the hand of a Creator.  It is proposed that such a delicate balance of inter-dependant factors and forces could not possibly be the outcome of pure chance.  It is also proposed that altering even one of these constants by just a few decimal places renders our universe totally hostile to life. 

 

The argument says that the fine-tuning of these many constants, each to umpteen decimal places, meaning that there can be no possible variation in the make-up of other universes - if such domains exist.  Each one must be identical to ours and must have exactly the same degree of fine-tuning as ours.  Otherwise these other universes would be sterile or unstable and short-lived.  Our universe possesses the one and only possible permutation of constants that yields complex, intelligent life.

 

But Gedalia, Jenkins and Perez have created a radically-different model of a life-friendly universe. 

They've done so by completely excluding a fundamental constant from their model and compensating for it's absence by adjusting other constants.  The fact that they have done so demonstrates that the Fine-Tuning Argument has been falsified.  Rather than there being just one possible, life-bearing universe (ours), GJP have shown that there are, in fact, a broad range of alternatives.

 

They say that most alternative, life-bearing universes won't possess a weak nuclear force (the constant they've excluded) as ours does.  This makes our universe something of an oddity, rather than the one-and-only possible configuration God could have used.

 

"...such 'weakless' (but hospitable) universes can be far more common than universes like ours."

 

So Badger, if they can successfully model many other alternative, life-bearing universes by radically altering their fundamental constants, this totally destroys the Fine-Tuning Argument. 

 

Fine-tuning isn't necessary for intelligent life. 

Fine-tuning isn't an indication of the hand of God. 

Fine-tuning is dead.

Fine-Tuning can be performed by mere men, who can outdo God and create a plethora of successful universes, rather than just one.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Badger]

Why should I care if they destroy the fine-tuning argument?

 

But thanks anyway. It sounds interesting.

[falemon]

No, I am not saying that walking on water is physically possible. I said it is logically possible. And it is logically possible if the laws of physics are not necessary truths (I do not think they are).

 

Okay that is fair and sound, if the laws of physics are not truths then they can be violated.

 

So then I would ask you, how to find the truths? What are the truths? And I know what you will say, you will most likely say what just about every Christian says when asked that question. But I want you to give me the true answer this time, I want you to think for yourself and respect truth because if you are a truth seeker as you make yourself out to be then I have to ask how you are to go about discerning truth.

 

Then I would ask you, in the absence of truth how could you educate yourself to a sufficient level to be able to find a the truth of physics to be able to find a way to violate the known laws of physics by demonstrating laws that derive directly from or just more closely related to truth?

 

Finally I am curious, what exactly is truth to you? What does it mean?

[Badger]

No, I am not saying that walking on water is physically possible. I said it is logically possible. And it is logically possible if the laws of physics are not necessary truths (I do not think they are).

 

Okay that is fair and sound, if the laws of physics are not truths then they can be violated.

 

So then I would ask you, how to find the truths? What are the truths? And I know what you will say, you will most likely say what just about every Christian says when asked that question. But I want you to give me the true answer this time, I want you to think for yourself and respect truth because if you are a truth seeker as you make yourself out to be then I have to ask how you are to go about discerning truth.

 

Then I would ask you, in the absence of truth how could you educate yourself to a sufficient level to be able to find a the truth of physics to be able to find a way to violate the known laws of physics by demonstrating laws that derive directly from or just more closely related to truth?

 

Finally I am curious, what exactly is truth to you? What does it mean?

 

Becareful here. I said: if they are not necessary truths.