Monday, July 13, 2009

Fine Tuning of the Universe

I came across this page a little while ago and I did not realize just how fine-tuned our universe was.
This surely raises a few or more questions for atheists about how this universe could come to be with the ability to support life and be what it is today without God.
I have taken the following information from: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html.
This shows once again evidence for how improbable our universe without a Designer would be.

Enjoy!

"Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rich Deem

Introduction

The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments about what scientists think about these numbers, see the page Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

Degree of fine tuning

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogens is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).


Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

  1. strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
  2. weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
  3. gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller
    : stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
  4. electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
  5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller
    : all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
  6. ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
  7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
  8. expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller
    : universe would collapse, even before stars formed
  9. entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
  10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
  11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
  12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
  13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
  14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
  15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
  16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller
    : planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
  17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
  18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
  19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
  20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller
    : same as above
  21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
  22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
  23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
  24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
  25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
  26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
  27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
  28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
  29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger
    : same result
  30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
  31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
  32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger
    : same result
  33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
  34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.

The Creator and the CosmosThe Creator and the Cosmos by Dr. Hugh Ross

A classic book for modern Christian apologetics and science. Dr. Ross presents the latest scientific evidence for intelligent design of our world and an easy to understand introduction to modern cosmology. This is a great book to give agnostics, who have an interest in cosmology and astronomy."

142 comments:

  1. So are you fully convinced of the old age of the universe now? Because, it seems, you can only claim that most of these constants are what they are if you buy-in to mainstream physics, cosmology, astronomy etc,

    If so, then very good!


    Fine-Tuning;

    Yep, things sure would be different if things were different...

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Matt,

    I could say that I am leaning more towards an old earth now but should evidence come up for a young earth then I will look at it as well:)

    It is amazing how well our universe is designed and held in place by...Someone. It's a little more wonderful than just "different", speaking with the little knowledge that I have, LOL.

    cheers,

    DB

    P.S. I will do a post sometime on my current old earth views from a Biblical perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not saying it's not wonderful.

    The water in a puddle thinks (if puddles think) that it's 'wonderful' that the hole it's in is the exact right shape for the puddle to form; how lucky, thinks the puddle, am I to have found myself in this puddle-shaped hole!

    Of course, a different puddle of water in a different shaped hole is thinking the exact same thing and the water that fell where no hole was present thinks nothing at all, because it never was....

    Anthropic principle.


    I'd be very interested to hear your Old-Earth/Biblical position. How does the Creation week fit into everything? Was there still a global flood? How does evolution fit into all of this? I look forward to reading your thoughts..

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  4. Old Earth or young Earth is still a created Earth.

    There is no chance here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wayne, it's 'chance' that you're here at all!

    How many ancestors do you have? Any one of them could have died or met a different partner or lived a life of celibacy. If they had, then a different family tree would have formed and today's living descendants would be very different, though they might consider it an inevitability that they exist, just like you apparently do. Do you not believe in Free Will?

    But whatever, are you acknowledging an Old (created) Earth here? It sounds like you are.

    I'm interested in people being honest with the evidence. If you want to say the world was 'created' 4 billion years ago, fine; I can't prove otherwise. But if you're going to claim that it was created 6,000 years ago, then I'm going to want to know why none of the evidence supports this and all of the evidence refutes this.

    That is all.


    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shalom Da Bomb,

    Or should I say Daniel, a good Jewish name.

    Excellent and truthful blog.

    I posted the answer to your question on my blog, but I thought I put it here in case did come back to my blog for a while.

    First of all, thanks for asking about my background. My background is somewhat complicated. If my claim to Judiac roots came through my father then I am Jewish. Since Judiac Law states that genealogy comes through my mother, I have no claim because she is a goyim and never converted to Judaism. However, I worship as and my belief system is that of a Messianic Jew. Clear as mud?

    I glad you are a supporter of the Jewish Homeland. I have never been to Israel but if G-d is willing, I'll get to go home someday...one way or another, if you know what I mean.

    Hope to meet you on this earth one day. However, if we don't then I'll meet you at the southern gate.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Ex-Pat

    "Wayne, it's 'chance' that you're here at all!"

    Chance or is it divine intervention? ;-)

    By the way, not all believers hold on to one specific version of the age of the earth. Most go with the evidence. You should know by our discussions on other sites, it could be perceive as 15 billion years by those who are on the earth and only a little over 6,000 years from G-ds perspective. Both could be true because we are constraint by time-space while G-d is out side time-space.G-ds Word is written from his point of view not ours.

    A good piece of evidence the difference is the fact that even though the universe overall is degrading, it continues to remained fine tuned in the areas Da Bomb has laid out in his blog.

    Please find me a scientist that can explain this. I've honestly been looking for a while. Some non believing scientist recognize this force but refuse to attribute it to G-d, while others claim its a phenomena.

    Believers obviously attribute it to G-d.

    G-d Bless

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey ya No Doubt,

    I have replied on your blog. Great to have you visit!

    "Hope to meet you on this earth one day. However, if we don't then I'll meet you at the southern gate."

    Yep, that will be exciting! I am a little hazy on exact prophecies regarding the future gates? What is the significance of the southern gate? Sorry about my ignorance.

    I know Jesus will return through the eastern gate:) It's blocked right now but soon will not be!

    Check this out about the twelve stones of Jerusalem in Revelation
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfCdcNRN60
    (you may be interested)
    I did a post on it earlier.

    blessings to you,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Da Bomb,

    Yechezchial (Ezekiel) 43:1-4 and Acts 1:9-11 are the references on the eastern gate.

    Ezekiel 43:1-4 Yechezchial saw the coming of the Mashiach from the Mount of Olives through through the eastern gate. Remember the two Angels told the Apostles that Y'shua would return in the same way he left. The way from Mt. Olives to the Temple is throught the eastern gate.

    As for the eastern gate being closed. Soon my friend, soon. And we get to see it first hand.

    As for the southern gate, we feel it's a good meeting place away from all the action. ;-)

    Just kidding. If we are correct, the judgment seat will be at the western gate and those standing at the southern gate, the Essene gate, will be at his right hand.

    Your brother in the Messiah.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No Doubt,

    "Chance or is it divine intervention? ;-)".

    And how could you possibly tell the difference...?

    "Most [believers] go with the evidence".

    I know, that's why most believers accept a very old Earth, it's just the minority who believe in a young earth who I disagree with.

    I'm not sure what you mean about 'degrading'. If you're talking about entropy then, no, that won't have much of a visible affect over the course of human history (a very short time indeed) but perhaps these 'constants' do change over the life of the universe - I don't know - but that's a long time and the effects would be incredibly small!

    Besides this, entropy doesn't really affect (m)any of the constants listed, so I'm not sure that this applies anyway.

    Sure, the two timescales could be true, but we can only view things from an Earth perspective, so we have to go with that, right? It's when Creation 'scientists' claim that the physical, Earth-bound evidence indicates a young earth, when it clearly doesn't. That's what I argue against. It can be 6,000 years old to God, if that's the way He wants it, fine; but we're not God and for us Earth = 4.7 billion years old.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Matt,

    "And how could you possibly tell the difference...?"

    I can tell without a reasonable doubt the difference between whether something is accidentely probable or not.
    Eg.
    An ordered garden...an ordered world. As I have asked you before...how many earths are around the place that support life and can form beings as complex as us?
    By this I can know that we are something special/not common/not random/

    Yet I can tell when something is accidently probable...random chaos...lack of order...purposelessness.

    cheers!

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ex-Pat,

    Degrading, wearing out, entropy...I do use them the same.

    Effects of entropy can be seen and measured. Just look at our sun. It's time of death has been predicted.

    With that said, I agree with you that entropy is small but it is measurable. However, you would expect to see close to the same measurable degradation in the items listed in Dan's blog. That's what is baffling most scientists. There is no apparent reason for it.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  13. No Doubt,

    "That's what is baffling most scientists".

    No, no it isn't.

    The sun dying has nothing to do with entropy. It's to do with how much fuel there is left to burn. That is not entropy.

    Entropy describes the tendency for energy to 'spread out' and become evenly distributed in a closed system. That's it. It has nothing to do with the polarity of water molecules or the number of effective dimensions in the early universe. Nothing at all to do with most (if any) of the items on Dan's list.

    So I very much doubt that it's baffling anyone. I think you may have gotten some terms mixed up, perhaps, at some point. But if you can point me to a scientist who claims to be baffled by what you are proposing, then I'll gladly reconsider my position.

    As it is, I think you've misunderstood the physics.

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey Ex-Pat,

    Lately, I've been trying to keep my comments to a minimum so I hope this isn't too long.

    “Entropy describes the tendency for energy to 'spread out' and become evenly distributed in a closed system.”

    You almost correct in your definition. Actually, entropy is a measurement or the difference between the amount of energy within a closed system able to do work and the amount of energy not able to do work. Naturally, a physical or closed system becomes more disordered, or degraded and its energy becomes more evenly distributed or spread out. The amount of entropy is often thought of as the amount of disorder or degradation in a system.

    “The sun dying has nothing to do with entropy. It's to do with how much fuel there is left to burn. That is not entropy.”

    Actually, you see the sun is a great example of entropy at work. The sun and as a matter of fact, the universe, will end in what’s called heat death otherwise known as maximum entropy. Heat death for all macroscopic physical systems, including the universe, is predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    “That's it. It has nothing to do with the polarity of water molecules or the number of effective dimensions in the early universe.”

    Actually, ice melting is another great example of entropy increasing. Clausius described ice melting as an increase in the disgregation or entropy of the molecules of the body of ice back in the 1800s. Sorry, I don’t have the exact reference. If memory serves me correctly, it was some magazine or professional publication. Did they have magazines back then. I’ll have to look that one up.

    “Nothing at all to do with most (if any) of the items on Dan's list.”

    I gave you the benefit of doubt and re-examined the list. It all about entropy. There’s not one thing on the list that is not.

    “So I very much doubt that it's baffling anyone.”

    The rate at which the items should be degrading indicates a slowing of entropy and in some cases, a slight reverse of entropy. The only way to see a slowing or reversal of entropy is if additional energy from outside the closed system is added to the closed system, ego, the bafflement of scientists.

    “I think you may have gotten some terms mixed up, perhaps, at some point. But if you can point me to a scientist who claims to be baffled by what you are proposing, then I'll gladly reconsider my position.”

    When asked about this, John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago and atheist stated:

    "We're stuck with this preposterous universe."

    Sounds puzzled to me.

    “ I think you've misunderstood the physics.”

    I’m going to leave that one alone. I would like this to stay civil. It’s been a good discussion so far, so let’s keep it that way.

    Shalom my friend

    ReplyDelete
  15. No Doubt wrote it could be perceive as 15 billion years by those who are on the earth and only a little over 6,000 years from G-ds perspective. Both could be true because we are constraint by time-space while G-d is out side time-space.

    If the latter is true, then God could/would not perceive the earth as being "6000 years" old. being "outside of time and space" (my rewording) means not being constrained by its conventions.

    Correct?

    If you think a being outside of time and space is constrained by the conventions of those things inside time and space, then you've rendered your concept of time meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No Doubt wrote "Effects of entropy can be seen and measured. Just look at our sun. It's time of death has been predicted."

    The rate at which our sun will expire is a function of the amount and type of fuel it has. Entropy has nothing to do with it.

    Honestly.

    Entropy might better be observed in the expansion of the universe (as we currently understand it), or the dissolution of red pigment in water.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No Doubt also wrote "The sun and as a matter of fact, the universe, will end in what’s called heat death"

    If by "will end" you mean "one of our theories predicts that it will end", then you're correct. If instead you mean "there's no doubt that the heat death represents what absolutely will happen", then you're wrong.

    There are several models of the universe, none of which are a sure thing. For example, there may be forces which cause it to collapse upon itself, resulting in a second big bang, etc.

    The second law of thermodynamics is as misunderstood as it is quoted. You wrote "Actually, ice melting is another great example of entropy increasing". This is true only in a closed system, and according to current science, only if that system is in a steady state. A great example of this is actually found at the surface of ice itself. On an ice cube, at the molecular level, you will see ice melting and water freezing - constantly. There's an equilibrium. If the ice cube is in a freezer in which the temperature is decreasing, you will still find ice melting, despite the fact that water is forming a crystalline structure at an increasing rate.

    The bottom line is this: is the universe an open or closed system?

    Nobody knows.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Fine-tuning or the Strong Anthropic Principle seems very compelling at first glance. This is because we have no real control. We only have what is here and we know it works or else we wouldn't be here. What is going on is we are looking and the conclusion and saying this is how it was done, this is the only way we know of it being done, so this must be the only way it can be done. This is of course a logical fallacy. Just because we found a can of beans in a cupboard does not mean we will only find cans of beans in the cupboard.

    Victor Stenger has said, "a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes." He then proceeded to back up this statement. He randomized the values of several of these so called fine-tuned forces 100 times from a range five orders of magnitude above to five orders of magnitude below their
    values in our universe. He let each universe grow with the different values in computer models. Here is his findings:

    "I have also examined the distribution of stellar lifetimes for these same 100 universes
    (Stenger 1995, 2000). While a few are low, most are probably high enough to allow time for
    stellar evolution and heavy element nucleosynthesis. Over half the universes have stars that live
    at least a billion years. Long stellar lifetime is not the only requirement for life, but it certainly is
    not an unusual property of universes.
    I do not dispute that life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the
    constants of physics were just slightly different. Additionally, I cannot prove that some other
    form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. But anyone who insists that our form of
    life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory."

    You can read about this at this website:

    http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  19. Whateverman,

    Concerning time-space and G-d.

    If G-d exists, then you would have have to agree that it's only his view that counts. That view is the bible.

    With that said, the primary source for creationist is the bible with supportin evidence in nature.

    In contrast, those, other than creationists, don't give the bible any credence.

    Therefore, G-d couldn't care less if we perceive it as 15 billion years it's still just 6,000 years.

    Bottom line...G-d is not and cannot be constraint by time or anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Whateverman,

    Concerning your comments about the sun, ice and entropy, I give you the following problem from Physic class.

    The surface of the Sun is approximately at 5700 K, and the temperature of the Earth's surface is approximately 290 K. What entropy changes occur when 1000 J of thermal energy is transferred from the Sun to the Earth?

    Solution:
    During the process the temperatures of the sun and the earth do not change appreciably. The change in the entropy of the sun is therefore DS = -1000 J/5700 K = -0,175 J/K. The change in the entropy of the earth is DS = 1000J/290 K = 3.448 J/K. The entropy of the sun-earth system increases by 3.27 J/K.

    Entropy is the difference between the energy able to do work the energy not able to do work. The sun is wearing out...pure and simple. That degradation is entropy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Whateverman,

    I meant to give the link to the previous physics problem.

    http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys136d/modules/m3/entropy.htm

    Courtesy of the University of Tennessee.

    I started give you a lot more links, but I honestly didn't want to insult your intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Whateverman,

    "The bottom line is this: is the universe an open or closed system?"

    "Nobody knows."

    Then why are you arguing with me if either side could be correct?

    ReplyDelete
  23. BeamStalk,

    I really appreciate your comment. However, neither your comment nor Victor Stenger has been able to explain either the slowing down or the reversal of entropy in the items in Dan's blog.

    If your are ever able, there's a Nobel waiting for you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Psalm 90:4
    "For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night"

    ReplyDelete
  25. If G-d exists, then you would have have to agree that it's only his view that counts. That view is the bible.

    Wow, talk about jumping. If a God exists, I would have to agree that only its view counts. But I see no reason why the Bible would be its view.

    I am lost. What do you mean by entropy level? The rate at which entropy increases? If so, why would you expect it to increase at a different rate? Entropy changes differently depending on the size of the system. It has a probabilistic nature, and the entropy they teach in high-school, and in other basic physics courses, is not exactly the one taught for physicist majors. There it is where things start getting a bit confusing for the lay person...

    But I still do not understand what is entropy doing here.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Where are those entropies slowing down and reversing? I went to Dan's blog and found nothing.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hey No Doubt, are you Dani'El in disguise?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey G.E.

    "Wow, talk about jumping. If a God exists, I would have to agree that only its view counts. But I see no reason why the Bible would be its view."

    LOL, so the simple question you are asking is not "does God exist" but rather why is the Bible God's view?
    It may be easier to talk about that once you believe in God, although I am surprised (having seen you around other christian blogs) that you wonder why we believe the Bible is the Word of God?

    Cheers.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  29. Then why are you arguing with me if either side could be correct?

    Perhaps because if either side could be correct, then these arguments do not support the existence of any Gods and would thus be empty babbling?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey Da Bomb!

    Nice to say hello to you. I do not think I read you lately.

    The question (I agree on the LOL), would be IF a God exists, why would the Bible be its view.

    Why would I be surprised? No, it is not whether I would be surprised my friend, but whether it makes sense. These are two different things. I am not surprised, experience shows this to be a default for certain Christians. Yet, the experience so far has not given me any reason to think that such a thing makes sense.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Da Bomb,

    I read the Psalm, now I have to ask. In context it is poetically trying to compare the eternity of God compared to the small human life. Where we humans are instants in comparison to God's eternity. Yet, you seem to have no trouble re-interpreting that little verse as having a meaning all of its own (that God's actual "days" can be thousands of years for us).

    Is this correct? Is it allowed to take parts away for reinterpretation?

    Just curious.

    Now that you are on it. Would it follow that "human" texts should be used the same way? (Take things out of context to give them a meaning all of their own.) Or is it more of a "Since the Bible is God's word, it contains more messages than an ordinary text." As in cabalistics?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hello G.E.,

    I just remember you from Ray's blog a while ago:)

    You are right about it comparing God's eternity with our puny mortal lives. The verse after shows this.

    5 "You carry them away like a flood; They are like a sleep. In the morning they are like grass which grows up"

    But I do think there is some truth in v4:
    "For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night"

    When I read that even in the context it makes me wonder about Einsteins theory of the relativity of time or something :)

    This is not the only verse that supports an old earth, long day view but many other points.
    (I would like to do a post on it sometime)

    Day Seven does not have a morning and an evening? Hmmmm I wonder why? Is it because that day was not complete yet? I believe God tells us things for a reason, even little points.

    2 Peter 3:
    8 ¶ But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

    Context is talking about the end times. This idea appears again. Hmmmmm.

    Catch ya,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Why would I be surprised? No, it is not whether I would be surprised my friend, but whether it makes sense. These are two different things. I am not surprised, experience shows this to be a default for certain Christians. Yet, the experience so far has not given me any reason to think that such a thing makes sense."

    Um, I think I said that "I" was surprised, not pointing out that you were surprised.

    Yes the Bible is a default for Christians (or we wouldn't be "Christians"...followers of Christ), but I do believe that we need to be ready to admit that we are fallible and can interpret it wrongly. (Eg. the days of creation, could mean 24 hour days or a long period of time...God days).

    Hope I make sense to you,

    Cya,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry for the confusion DaBomb,

    I should not have used the word "surprised" when you clearly used it to refer to yourself. I meant I do expect certain Christians to think of the Bible as "God's view". What I still lack is any other reason to jump from "If God exists" to "The Bible is his view". Like it was an immediate "of course" consequence of there being a God.

    I would add that it is quite a tiny God if its view, and itself, can be contained into a single little book (remember the days to thousands of years relationship, you have to agree that any book would be too small to contain God itself). It is worse than a genie contained in a single little oil lamp.

    As of the Biblical stuff out of context. I agree that God being eternal, it could decide to call humungous amounts of time "days", and that you could take from the entirety of Psalm 90 as a consequence of God's eternal nature, rather than taking those verses out of context. I did not have time to check the context of those other verses you showed me. But I take your word for it.

    In any event, I find it funny that some Christians want to truly contain their God into that book. I prefer other Christian's view that the Bible is a book that points to God, but do not take it as completely historical and factual, let alone as filled with scientific insight, much less as God itself. Of course, this opens a different can of worms, but it is at least more consistent with an omni-everything God than trying to confine such God in the book.

    Thanks for the chat.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  35. By the way DB, congrats on your engagement. She certainly looks like a blessing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I really appreciate your comment. However, neither your comment nor Victor Stenger has been able to explain either the slowing down or the reversal of entropy in the items in Dan's blog.

    What does Entropy have to do with Fine-tuning? You are committing a Red Herring logical fallacy. I went back and read through your arguments here and why do you think Entropy would affect those forces? You even gave the exact description of Entropy. Why do you think Entropy would affect the Strong Nuclear Force?

    Also, the comments in his why they have to be this way or life won't form is pure speculation. Life as we know it may not form but to say life won't form is based on nothing. Like Stenger said, "anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory." Which is what the Fine-Tuned or Strong Anthropic Principle does.

    ReplyDelete
  37. On Fine Tuning

    You're speaking of the weak anthopic principal here.
    The basic argument is fatally flawed due to the fact that life, as we know it is tuned to the cosmos. The cosmos is not tuned to like.
    There was no sentient universe deciding to comeinto existence with th goal of supporting life.
    The chemical and physical composition of the earth could have been much different and suppoted the origin of life.
    Could a planet with no oxygen support life? Yes, we have oranisms on the earth that are killed by oxygen. They are anerobic.
    Could a planet with an atmoshphere of hydrogen sulide support life? Yes. There are organisms that thrive on the Hyd sulf at geothermal vents in the ocean.
    Could life exist on a planet that was large enough to produce one thousand times the gravity of earth? Yes. Organisms that live in the deep oceans have adapted to pressures one thousand times that of ordinary atmospheric pressure.
    (14.7 psi at sea level- 15,000 psi at the bottom of the Challeger Deep.
    Could a much colder planet support life? Of course. Life thrives in the ice covered lakes of Antartica.

    The universe is not tuned for life. Life is tuned to the universe since we all agree that the universe cam into existence first.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hey again GE,

    "In any event, I find it funny that some Christians want to truly contain their God into that book. I prefer other Christian's view that the Bible is a book that points to God, but do not take it as completely historical and factual, let alone as filled with scientific insight, much less as God itself. Of course, this opens a different can of worms, but it is at least more consistent with an omni-everything God than trying to confine such God in the book."

    Well, the Bible doesn't contain God to a Book. Except for on matters of eternal worth (God's charater etc).
    The Bible says that God's Spirit who dwells in us guides us into truth. That would be open and not closed in a book. This is how miracles happen, how people are guided by His voice in our daily lives.
    I suppose you would come to believe in a God that is evil and is good?
    The Bible is a wonderful amazing Book that reveals the good character of God and His standards.
    I notice God didn't write it as a "chapter one:on God the Father, chapter 2: Yeshua the Son, chapter three: the holy Spirit".
    The Bible is a book of life that shows us how to live and reveals real day to day life.

    Hope you get my drift.

    "let alone as filled with scientific insight, much less as God itself."

    There are some fascinating scientific insights in there as you probably know. And prophecy? how can man predict the future?
    Now we go into broad areas :)
    I thought I would mention them.

    cheers,

    DB

    P.S.
    Thanks for the congrads on the engagement!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey Froggie,
    Long time no see :)

    "The basic argument is fatally flawed due to the fact that life, as we know it is tuned to the cosmos. The cosmos is not tuned to like."

    As we know it? What if as we know it is true?
    I say, I cannot see God yet but one day I will :)
    All we can know is what we have got in front of us. Evidence that points toward different conclusions. If there is no good evidence pointing against the fine tuning idea of the universe, then why rely on it?

    "The universe is not tuned for life. Life is tuned to the universe since we all agree that the universe cam into existence first."

    That is an absolute statement, so you totally reject the idea of there being a God/Designer/Guider?

    cya,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  40. DB said,

    And prophecy? how can man predict the future?

    Science does it all the time. There is a reason we know when and where solar eclipses will take place, when the sun will go red giant and where to dig to find certain fossils (tiktaalik roseae, just look up how they found it).

    Show me one prophecy in the bible that has as much predictive power as science. You should try using supporting evidence not found in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  41. No Doubt,

    I hope you don't mind that I called for back-up on this one. I am far from a physics expert and there are plenty of people with far more knowledge about these things than me; I defer to their better judgment.

    I still don't think you are fairly using the term 'entropy' though. You seem to be implying that because there is entropy everything should be subject to it over time in an equal manner. I just don't see how you can apply it like that.

    Can you provide a reference for that quote you cited?

    Cheers,

    And my apologies if I bordered on being uncivil, it was not my intent.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hey Beamstalk!

    Prophecies of the destruction of Tyre,
    The 11th chapter of the book of Daniel (in fact just about the whole book). Isaiah 53. Prediction that the Messiah would be born in Bethleham. To name a few. We could also go into the prophecies in revelation regarding a world trading mark...one world currency etc.

    The book of Daniel and the prophecies of Tyre are answered outside of the Bible.
    (In my side links I did a study up on Tyre and its destructoin)

    How about predictions the Bible makes about science?
    The Big Bang...our universe has a beginning-. Gen chapter 1:1.
    God hangs the earth on nothing-
    Job 26:7

    "It is he [God] that sitteth upon the circle [sphere] of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers…" Isaiah 40:22.

    I know that other areas suggest that the earth is flat. They are obviously figurative...but why is it that some passages suggest a round earth hanging in space? I thought this was a relatively recent view?

    NE way.
    Hope you found that interesting.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  43. DB,
    "How about predictions the Bible makes about science?"

    Methinks thou hast been reading a bit too much Hugh Ros.
    He shoehorns scentific facts into obscure verses to the point of absurdity.


    By the way, just for the record, I don't know what the condition of the cosmos was before the beginning of time and space as we know it, and I don't care, not one iota.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wow....alot can happen in just 24 hours.

    Good Evening Gentlemen. Well at least it's evening here.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ex-Pat,
    "I hope you don't mind that I called for back-up on this one."

    No I don't mind. The more the better. Everyone is being civil which makes it enjoyable discussing things with you.

    "And my apologies if I bordered on being uncivil, it was not my intent."

    I'm sorry. I didn't intend to imply that you were being uncivil. On the contrary, my only response sounded uncivil, so I did go there.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ex-Pat,

    "Can you provide a reference for that quote you cited?"

    The University of Chicago News press release. Sept 19, 2002

    When discussing paradoxical views of the universe
    of astronomers which included the anthropic principle and how it related to his discovery of the polarization of light, he made the following statement.

    “Instead of stating that we think we really understand the origin and evolution of the universe with high confidence, we would be saying that we just don’t know. Polarization is predicted. It’s been detected and it’s in line with theoretical predictions. We’re stuck with this preposterous universe.”

    ReplyDelete
  47. Beam Stalk,

    "What does Entropy have to do with Fine-tuning? You are committing a Red Herring logical fallacy. I went back and read through your arguments here and why do you think Entropy would affect those forces? You even gave the exact description of Entropy. Why do you think Entropy would affect the Strong Nuclear Force?"

    Please don't take this wrong. However, I can't think of anyway of writing it without sounding uncivil. Please.....Let's keep the accusations to a minimum. Just because you don't understand my point of view doesn't mean that I'm guilty of diversion or as you say, I'm committing a Red Herring logical fallacy. Just because you and I disagree, have I accused you being (insert any insult). The answer is no. Again, please don't take that as an insult or proof that I'm angry. I'm not. I just want to keep our discussion on an adult level.

    "Also, the comments in his why they have to be this way or life won't form is pure speculation."

    Prove speculation. Just don;t say it. Give me proof it's speculation.

    "Life as we know it may not form but to say life won't form is based on nothing. Like Stenger said, "anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory."

    Once again, prove your point. It's ok to quote people, but what you and Stenger have said is pure speculation also. Yes I will admit that the Anthropic Principle is speculation, but most science is speculation based on observation. You can dispove my speculation with your speculation and proclaim that you've won the argument. You sound like a smart science student. Could you write a paper using your speculation to disprove another speculation. NO. Your professor would throw your paper back at you and say let's try it again. That is unless things have changed since I've been in college.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Froggie,

    "You're speaking of the weak anthopic principal here. The basic argument is fatally flawed due to the fact that life, as we know it is tuned to the cosmos. The cosmos is not tuned to like.
    There was no sentient universe deciding to comeinto existence with th goal of supporting life."

    Invalid argement. What makes it weak? Your supposition is invalid because it comes from a one sided view. You are assuming that there is no sentient universe or being with the goal of supporting life. An assumption that has no concrete supporting evidence.

    Your comments about other lifeforms is also invalid for no other lifeforms of any kind have been anywhere but here on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  49. GE,

    "Perhaps because if either side could be correct, then these arguments do not support the existence of any Gods and would thus be empty babbling?"

    Pure speculation for you have not proven that there is no G-d.

    Why do you have to result to insult in order to get your point across. Have we insulted you? If so, I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  50. GE,

    "I am lost. What do you mean by entropy level? The rate at which entropy increases? If so, why would you expect it to increase at a different rate? Entropy changes differently depending on the size of the system. It has a probabilistic nature, and the entropy they teach in high-school, and in other basic physics courses, is not exactly the one taught for physicist majors. There it is where things start getting a bit confusing for the lay person..."

    Interesting comment since I teach Physics.

    "But I still do not understand what is entropy doing here."

    Yes, You do need to understand entropy please see my comments and follow the links. There are plenty of places on the internet and books I can suggest to get you up to speed. Just say the word.

    However, you do have a nugget of wisdom in your comments.

    "If so, why would you expect it to increase at a different rate?"

    That's the point of the Anthropic Principle. Keep going in that direction and I'm sure you'll get it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Beam Stalk,

    "Science does it all the time. There is a reason we know when and where solar eclipses will take place, when the sun will go red giant and where to dig to find certain fossils (tiktaalik roseae, just look up how they found it)."

    Science makes their "predictions" based on the consistency of nature. Those are not prophecies but comon knowledge. Isn't that like me knowing that you take a bath everyday and predicting you'll use water?

    "Show me one prophecy in the bible that has as much predictive power as science. You should try using supporting evidence not found in the Bible."

    Once again, that's like me telling to quit using science in an attempt to prove your point. Isn't that a little unfair.

    With that said, Daniel chapter nine holds the most amazing prophecy that far outshadows anything science has done to date. Using both the bible and secular sources, I can show that Daniel predicted the exact day that Y'shua would arrive on the scene.

    Science can't even tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow...that is consisently.

    ReplyDelete
  52. GE,

    My friend. Please don't take this as an insult. I read you profile. I see you are in science and education. What science do you teach? Are you honestly teaching your students in the way you present yourself here? or are you just pulling our leg?

    ReplyDelete
  53. No Doubt,
    "Daniel chapter nine holds the most amazing prophecy that far outshadows anything science has done to date. Using both the bible and secular sources, I can show that Daniel predicted the exact day that Y'shua would arrive on the scene."

    So, what's stopping you?
    (I can't wait to see the fractured logic on this one.)
    Please explain this lest I perish of curiosity.

    ReplyDelete
  54. No Doubt,
    You said,
    "Yes I will admit that the Anthropic Principle is speculation, but most science is speculation based on observation."

    Then,

    "Science makes their "predictions" based on the consistency of nature. Those are not prophecies but comon knowledge."
    Contradictory, that.

    And then for an encore,
    "Your comments about other lifeforms is also invalid for no other lifeforms of any kind have been anywhere but here on earth."

    And you know that how?

    ReplyDelete
  55. No Doubt,
    You said,
    "Yes, You do need to understand entropy please see my comments and follow the links."

    I do not see any links posted by you, on phisics, in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I thought I would add my views to the fine tuning argument. Reading those points I get the feeling that list has been padded out. But that's irrelevant. The fact is our universe is fine tuned. But I fail to see how that is strong evidence for God. All it means is that the physical constants we observe aren't random.

    Things can happen for a reason without some intelligent purpose being involved. There's a reason why the sky is blue, snowflakes are six-sided and bats were the only mammals here in NZ before humans arrived. None of these reasons involve a god. There's almost certainly a reason why our universe supports life. But why that reason must involve an intelligent creator I don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hi No Doubt,

    1. I was not trying to disprove God, these principles were supposed to support its existence, and you, not me, said that either side could be right. Thus, the arguments do not prove God. It is that simple.

    2. What insults are you talking about?

    3. I did not say I did not know what entropy is. I said I did not see why you were discussing entropy, nor what the issue was. I read the whole thing here, and could not find the reason to discuss entropy and what entropy is. In other words, I could not find any claim. Just that point in the list of supposedly "finely tuned stuff". With no explanation of what that entry on entropy means. (Again, I am not asking for a definition of entropy, but for an explanation of what that entry is about.)

    4. I know about entropy. I am involved in informational sciences and genomics.

    5. I am not pulling your leg. But I will be happy to delete my profile if you prefer.

    6. Despite you teach physics, it seems like you do not know about entropy further than entry level. Yet, I do not care. There is no claim, and I am not going for a red-herring.

    7. If you have a clear claim about entropy and God, let us know.

    8. What the heck is that G-d? Do you mean you are not sure what vowel to write?

    9. The above is not an insult.

    10. Are you Dani'EL in disguise?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hey DaBomb,

    There are some fascinating scientific insights in there as you probably know.

    No such thing as fascinating scientific insights (I know the claims in Ray's web site, copied from somewhere else, and copied again by Dan. All rubbish). There are a few insights but nothing that a person could not know. Parts with nice insights into human nature, again, nothing that a person could not know or could not learn through careful observation.

    Unfortunately contrasted with quite the opposite, which would prove the multiple authorship and lack of divine intervention. Yet a very interesting book (books) to study the evolution of the cultures surrounding the Bible.

    And prophecy? how can man predict the future?

    Really want to start the rock rolling Daniel?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Cantareous,

    The fact is our universe is fine tuned

    Not a fact. Just wishful thinking, but even if it were, I agree with you, it would not mean God.

    ----
    DB,

    While there are too many flaws in the "argument", which apologists love doing (they construct false claims over false claims over even more false claims layered across with unwarranted assumptions, so that the opponents would take forever deconstructing the edifice of crap). I will not discuss everything. I am just showing you that, actually, I think it is a lose-lose situation for God:

    (I assume a God would not be sexed.)

    1. The universe is finely tuned: Thus, no God. Why would a God be limited in its choices for creating the Universe?

    2. The Universe is not finely tuned (or does not have to be): Thus, no God, there is no need.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  60. DB, I have yet to have the chance to look at the prophecy of Tyre you mentioned. I will take a look at it though.

    The Big Bang is when time and space began. The matter and energy of the Universe came before that, well that is the best way to put it not entirely correct though, because you can't have a before if there is no time.

    Isaiah was referencing a circle not a sphere, but this is pedantic stuff. There are several references to the world being flat even in Isaiah, the spreading of the heavens over earth like a tent, climbing mountains to see all of the world and trees growing so large the entire world can see it. How do you know they are figurative, what leads you to that conclusion?

    The idea that people thought the world was flat is a bit bogus. The ancient Greeks spoke of a round world, it is fairly obvious to any mountain dwelling culture that the earth is round.

    ReplyDelete
  61. ND,

    Please don't take this wrong. However, I can't think of anyway of writing it without sounding uncivil. Please.....Let's keep the accusations to a minimum. Just because you don't understand my point of view doesn't mean that I'm guilty of diversion or as you say, I'm committing a Red Herring logical fallacy. Just because you and I disagree, have I accused you being (insert any insult). The answer is no. Again, please don't take that as an insult or proof that I'm angry. I'm not. I just want to keep our discussion on an adult level.

    This is logic, I am not being uncivil or calling names. Unless you can prove your comment has anything to do with what is going on, then all you are doing is creating a diversion to take the focus away from the main argument. That is what a Red Herring logical fallacy is. So show me why your talk of Entropy has to do with the fine-tuned argument.

    Science makes their "predictions" based on the consistency of nature. Those are not prophecies but comon knowledge. Isn't that like me knowing that you take a bath everyday and predicting you'll use water?

    Yes, kind of, because you are going off of the basis that we use water to wash ourselves. In this day and age and place that is a fairly common practice, but you can't know for sure. That is the same with science, they made a prediction about solar eclipses based on calculations and observations, but they can't know for sure.

    Also it is so common knowledge that people used to give magical explanations for why eclipses happened. You have grown up around science so it seems like common knowledge to you.

    This is one way to confirm a scientific hypothesis. After you look at the evidence, you make predictions based on the evidence. The solar eclipses just help to confirm that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around earth. It is a prediction, even though it uses knowledge. If a solar eclipse didn't happen that was predicted by science, then there would be a lot of studying going on as to why. This could cause a whole shift in Cosmology.

    ReplyDelete
  62. ND cont,

    Once again, that's like me telling to quit using science in an attempt to prove your point. Isn't that a little unfair.

    Science does not rely on a single source. It relies on convergent evidences. So it is nothing like that. Your example of a confirmed prophecy is a good point of that.

    With that said, Daniel chapter nine holds the most amazing prophecy that far outshadows anything science has done to date. Using both the bible and secular sources, I can show that Daniel predicted the exact day that Y'shua would arrive on the scene.

    Amazing the writers of the New Testament were practicing Jews before converting to Christianity. Gentiles weren't allowed in until later as you should know. So most of them knew of this prediction. Then they write a story years after the prediction is to have taken place. So they can just write their messiah doing what the prediction said. Unless you have another source verifying that this happened like it said in the Bible, then you just have people telling stories that fit predictions they already know about.

    Let me give you an analogy. George Washington predicted that there would be a man that walks into America and is flowered with roses and he shall lead us all to a new era of life, etc... He will do this 200 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Well now let me tell you about my messiah, Steve Smith. He came to America on July 4th 1976, exactly 200 years after the signing of Declaration of Independence. When he arrived he was showered with roses and everyone who saw him said he was the messiah. I know I am writing this 33 years after it happened but it happened. That proves George Washington's prediction and means Steve Smith is the true messiah.

    Mark was the first book written and it was written conservatively around 65CE. That would be around 32 years after Jesus died. Matthew and Luke copied Mark and each other or possibly another document that has not been found. Mark can be found in its entirety in Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke share passages verbatim not shared with Mark. John was written many years after the other 3.

    So tell me why I shouldn't ask for corroborating evidence?

    Science can't even tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow...that is consisently.

    I live in an area that is very hard to predict the weather. Yet, I can count on the weather for tomorrow being quite accurate. The further you go from the current the harder it is to predict because of the chaotic nature of weather. But if the forecast says it will be 97 degrees with 10% chance of rain. I am going to dress like it is going to be around 97 degrees, how will you dress?

    ReplyDelete
  63. GE,

    What the heck is that G-d? Do you mean you are not sure what vowel to write?

    He is pretending that a title is a name. In Hebrew it is a sin to even write the name of God. So they would substitute YHWH with Elohim etc. Now people confuse the title God (Elohim in Hebrew) for the name YHWH. It is like thinking the name of the President of the United States is Mr. President.

    ReplyDelete
  64. ND, some more stuff,

    "Also, the comments in his why they have to be this way or life won't form is pure speculation."

    Prove speculation. Just don;t say it. Give me proof it's speculation.

    "Life as we know it may not form but to say life won't form is based on nothing. Like Stenger said, "anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory."

    Once again, prove your point. It's ok to quote people, but what you and Stenger have said is pure speculation also. Yes I will admit that the Anthropic Principle is speculation, but most science is speculation based on observation. You can dispove my speculation with your speculation and proclaim that you've won the argument. You sound like a smart science student. Could you write a paper using your speculation to disprove another speculation. NO. Your professor would throw your paper back at you and say let's try it again. That is unless things have changed since I've been in college.


    Wow, where to begin on this. Please prove that life can only exist as we know it. We can't say definitively either way and that is what Victor is saying. He has shown that through his models changing the "fine-tuned" parameters, that we can get the starting ingredients for life. This refutes the fine-tuned argument.

    Also the fine-tuned argument makes the claim, implicitly that life as we know it is the only kind of life. We can't know that that claim is true. This is just pointing out one of the fallacies of the argument.

    I am not sure if you understand debating with logic.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hey BeamStalk,

    "Isaiah was referencing a circle not a sphere, but this is pedantic stuff. There are several references to the world being flat even in Isaiah, the spreading of the heavens over earth like a tent, climbing mountains to see all of the world and trees growing so large the entire world can see it. How do you know they are figurative, what leads you to that conclusion?"

    The fact that he referred to earth as a circle is amazing...both he and Job came before the Greeks!
    I know that they are figurative because they are scientifically incorrect. For example in the story of Joshua the sun stopped in the sky...to him this was true, it was the way it look to the writer. Scientifically it was the earth that stopped spinning. Although Joshua's "view" was correct.
    God obviously chooses to reveal truths to different people. The fact that a circular earth hanging in space is mentioned over 2800 years ago is quite amazing.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hello G.E.

    "1. The universe is finely tuned: Thus, no God. Why would a God be limited in its choices for creating the Universe?"

    He's not limited, it was His choice. Isn't it amazing that God could make a world that is freewill and yet subject to Him!

    We need to get rid of Greek presumptuous ideas of God.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  68. Correction,

    above should be "2700 years ago"

    ReplyDelete
  69. GE

    "(I know the claims in Ray's web site, copied from somewhere else, and copied again by Dan. All rubbish)"

    I didn't copy them from Ray :)

    ReplyDelete
  70. BeamStalk,

    "Amazing the writers of the New Testament were practicing Jews before converting to Christianity."

    Huh? Luke wasn't a Jew, he was a Gentile.

    "Gentiles weren't allowed in until later as you should know."

    Huh? What about the Samaritan woman.

    "So most of them knew of this prediction. Then they write a story years after the prediction is to have taken place. So they can just write their messiah doing what the prediction said. Unless you have another source verifying that this happened like it said in the Bible, then you just have people telling stories that fit predictions they already know about."

    Where do you get these assumptions except for a bias? If the authors of the Gospels got together to write a false account then why do they appear to dis-agree?
    I mean, they are all written from different angles saying different things. People say the gospels are "contradictory" (I don't think they are) but if they were...that would be way stronger evidence FOR what actually happened in them! It would show they didn't get together and make it up.

    "Let me give you an analogy. George Washington predicted that there would be a man that walks into America and is flowered with roses and he shall lead us all to a new era of life, etc... He will do this 200 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Well now let me tell you about my messiah, Steve Smith. He came to America on July 4th 1976, exactly 200 years after the signing of Declaration of Independence. When he arrived he was showered with roses and everyone who saw him said he was the messiah. I know I am writing this 33 years after it happened but it happened. That proves George Washington's prediction and means Steve Smith is the true messiah."

    Yes your analogy is plausible...although if there are multiple prophecies coming true then how is that a fraud?

    Just some thoughts...

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Scientifically it was the earth that stopped spinning."

    And..scientifically this is where I leave because this type of ignorance cannot be reasoned with.

    Thanks for the example of rank ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Froggie,

    If you want to be-little God then that is your choice, your personal reasoning. To me it is ignorance to not consider the fact that if God is real then He COULD DO IT, whether you believe in Him or not.

    Thanks for the discussions though.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  73. To me, there is no difference whatsoever between someone who says that Joshua's earth stopped spinning and some one who says the earth is flat.

    Believing the earth stopped spinning and then started again is ignorant beyond description and anyone trying to pass that off as fact is insulting my intelligence. I cannot even fathom that any adult could hold these myths as truth.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Froggie,

    I don't think you comprehended a word I wrote. If you are annoyed that I believe the miracle of the earth stopping it's spin, then you should be annoyed about all miracles. God is God and why can't He manipulate what He made?

    You have a car and yet manipulate it's components. Should the car then say that you are not qualified?
    I was giving an explanation for another point but somehow you have taken a side track.

    Here is a good talk I found for you on this topic:
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2189

    cheers,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  75. DB,

    He's not limited, it was His choice. Isn't it amazing that God could make a world that is freewill and yet subject to Him!

    Sorry DB, but this "fine-tuning" argument is killed by itself. If you claim that the universe is fine tuned, and that such would be impossible by chance, and thus God, it follows that it (God) was limited to these constants. In other words, it had no choice. Thus, this would be a minor God. Greeks or not.

    Now, if he made it that way, why give the appearance of being limited? Does God want you to think it has limited options for creating a physical world? Thus, no such thing as God.

    In simple words, besides the many problems I could attack in the fine-tuning "argument," the argument back-fires. I would not use it if I were you.

    As of the science in the Bible, I said Ray copied from somewhere else. One of those more professional liars sites. But I do not remember which.

    I would take a look at yours, but most probably the very same list.

    Have a fantastic weekend!

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hey ya,

    "Now, if he made it that way, why give the appearance of being limited?"

    I seriously don't think God is limited? and not limited to these constants. Just as we make complex objects for our pleasure why can't God? if He is the source of pleasure?

    Thanks for the talks! it has been fun.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  77. As for the fine tuning argument I just wonder why our universe is so fitting to make us? If a little tilt here or there in the universe constants would make it impossible (as we know it) then why did it not form so that we can't have life?

    I'm just trying to make the best conclusion with the evidence that we have.

    ReplyDelete
  78. DB,

    Huh? Luke wasn't a Jew, he was a Gentile.

    Prove that Luke wrote Luke. These names were arbitrarily assigned well after the fact. No one knows who the original writers were for the Gospels.

    Huh? What about the Samaritan woman.

    What Samaritan woman? Seriously, go read Acts, it was in a dream about eating shellfish that Peter decided it was time to preach to the Gentiles. Jesus himself called Gentiles dogs.

    Where do you get these assumptions except for a bias? If the authors of the Gospels got together to write a false account then why do they appear to dis-agree?

    I didn't say they got together. I am saying they knew of each others work. All of Mark can be found in Luke and Matthew, that is a fact. Some passages not found in Mark, are word for word the same in Luke and Matthew, fact. This is why they are called the Synaptic Gospels. John was the last Gospel written, fact.At least you admit that there are some incongruences in the gospels.

    I mean, they are all written from different angles saying different things. People say the gospels are "contradictory" (I don't think they are) but if they were...that would be way stronger evidence FOR what actually happened in them! It would show they didn't get together and make it up.

    There is no evidence any of the Gospels were eye witnesses. Luke says it isn't at the beginning of it. It is just stories that had been passed down and finally were written down. As matter of fact, we know that passages were added many years after, by scribes. For example the last paragraph in Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in John.

    Yes your analogy is plausible...although if there are multiple prophecies coming true then how is that a fraud?

    If you know the prophecies, and you are writing your story after the point of when the prophecies were fulfilled. Then you can make your character fulfill any prophecy you want. That is what my analogy was pointing out. I can make Steve Smith fulfill any prophecy I want. Then I can tell Froggie about it and he can write down the story also. He can then tell Stan, so on and so forth.

    There was also no Bible at the time of the writings. They did not know the stories would be contained together. Instead these were writings for the local churches.

    ReplyDelete
  79. DB,

    The fact that he referred to earth as a circle is amazing...both he and Job came before the Greeks!

    You find that amazing? You ever been on top of a mountain? The world is a circle from the top of a mountain. There are mountains in Israel. Amazingly if you move a couple of mountains over you will see a slightly different world. You can do this a couple of times and realize that the world is round. That is why I said most mountain cultures realized the world was round.

    I know that they are figurative because they are scientifically incorrect. For example in the story of Joshua the sun stopped in the sky...to him this was true, it was the way it look to the writer. Scientifically it was the earth that stopped spinning. Although Joshua's "view" was correct.

    I am with Froggie on this. You don't understand the repercussions of the action of the world stopping. It would destroy the world.

    http://starryskies.com/articles/2003/09/earth.rotation.html

    "Earth is rotating at a speed of about 1100 miles per hour. If our planet suddenly stopped rotating, the atmosphere would still be in motion at that speed. The atmosphere would be moving so fast it would literally sweep the land masses clear of anything not anchored to bedrock, this would mean rocks, soil, trees, buildings, people and animals. All would be swept up into the atmosphere."

    So stopping the world is scientifically incorrect.

    In Genesis, Birds appear before land animals, so that is scientifically incorrect. Light appears before the sun. The moon is called a source of light. So Genesis is therefor, by your standards, figurative.

    God obviously chooses to reveal truths to different people. The fact that a circular earth hanging in space is mentioned over 2800 years ago is quite amazing.

    He just gives lots of wrong information and makes everything really obscure that is correct. So obscure it can be translated in numerous ways. You know like saying a circle equals a sphere.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hey DB,

    I'm just trying to make the best conclusion with the evidence that we have.

    It does not seem like that DB. Seems like you do not see the backfiring that I am trying to show you. Look, even if this argument backfires does not mean there is no God. It just means that, by itself, it would prove that there is no such thing. Which means you should look elsewhere, or accept God as an act of faith and forget about constructing convoluted and fallacious arguments that only damage your faith (if you are intellectually honest)., and the perception that we have about apologetics.

    Keep having a nice weekend,
    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  81. By the way. I just noticed that I like you much better here. My perception of you at Ray's was not that nice. Good to have met you under such different "environment."

    ReplyDelete
  82. Beam Stalk,

    Talking about a “Red Herring”. After reading your comments, that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Do you even read the comments before commenting on them?

    “He is pretending that a title is a name. In Hebrew it is a sin to even write the name of God. So they would substitute YHWH with Elohim etc. Now people confuse the title God (Elohim in Hebrew) for the name YHWH. It is like thinking the name of the President of the United States is Mr. President.”

    Your Anti-Semitism is shining through and you are so wrong. We write G-d out of respect. Something you’re obviously not aware of.

    ReplyDelete
  83. GE,

    1.I was not trying to disprove God, these principles were supposed to support its existence, and you, not me, said that either side could be right. Thus, the arguments do not prove God. It is that simple.

    I don’t think I ever said that they prove that G-d exists. I said we see this as devine intervention. You don’t. That’s fine. But to say that these priciples don’t exist and something weird is not going on is just not right. As I commented before, even an atheist professor from the University of Chicago stated as such, without pointing to G-d of course.

    2. What insults are you talking about?

    The term “empty babbling” was what I was referring to. If I said that you were babbling, would you not take that as an insult?

    3. I did not say I did not know what entropy is. I said I did not see why you were discussing entropy, nor what the issue was. I read the whole thing here, and could not find the reason to discuss entropy and what entropy is. In other words, I could not find any claim. Just that point in the list of supposedly "finely tuned stuff". With no explanation of what that entry on entropy means. (Again, I am not asking for a definition of entropy, but for an explanation of what that entry is about.)

    I’m sorry. You kept saying that entropy did not come into play. I say it does. To me and everyone else who recognizes the Anthropic Principle, the level of entropy does not seem to follow what you would expect. It appeared that you did not know the full definition of entropy, therefore I was only trying to explain. I was not trying to insult you.

    4. I know about entropy. I am involved in informational sciences and genomics.

    Entropy, in the information sciences, is basically how much a signal degrades. Is it not?

    5. I am not pulling your leg. But I will be happy to delete my profile if you prefer.

    I honestly thought you were messing with me. Therefore, I tried to mess with you.

    6. Despite you teach physics, it seems like you do not know about entropy further than entry level. Yet, I do not care. There is no claim, and I am not going for a red-herring.

    The terms “entry level” and “red-herring” are insulting. I did not say your understanding of Physics was entry level, even though you were attempting to use entropy as you understand it, not what the scientific community as a whole believes it to be.

    7. If you have a clear claim about entropy and God, let us know.

    Please look back on my comments. I never said that entropy and G-d was related. I said that the slowing down or reversal of entropy in the areas stated by Dan, was evidence of divine intervention. Again, you do not. That’s fine.

    As a matter of fact, G-ds universe was perfect until man fell from grace. Of course, you don’t want to talk about that.

    8. What the heck is that G-d? Do you mean you are not sure what vowel to write?

    You see. With comment like that, I think you are pulling my leg. However, if you are serious, I will tell you. We write G-d out of respect, not as Beam Stalk erroneously attempted to explain.

    9. The above is not an insult.

    As you can see from my comment, I didn’t take it as such.

    10. Are you Dani'EL in disguise?

    No…he’s a lot better looking than me. Plus…he’s almost 30 years younger than me. He lives in New Zealand while I live in the United States, specifically, Hamilton, Ohio.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Froggie,

    ""Yes I will admit that the Anthropic Principle is speculation, but most science is speculation based on observation."

    Then,

    "Science makes their "predictions" based on the consistency of nature. Those are not prophecies but comon knowledge."
    Contradictory, that."

    Contradictory? How? You've got to explain this one to me. Both comments state that science doesn't hold the answer.

    "And then for an encore,
    "Your comments about other lifeforms is also invalid for no other lifeforms of any kind have been anywhere but here on earth."

    And you know that how?"

    If you know have any evidence to the contrary, I and the whole scientific community await your revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dan and Beam Stalk,

    "Isaiah was referencing a circle not a sphere, but this is pedantic stuff."

    I'm sorry Beam Stalk, you are wrong. The Hebrew word, used in Isaiah 40:22, is "khoog". And as Dan correctly stated, it does mean to encompass not just a circle. However, its root words, "khaw-gag" and "khaw-gaw" clearly shows that it implies sphericity. Don't feel bad, you don't know Hebrew and it is an easy mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Dan,

    Isn't it amazing how the Word of G-d shows a level of knowledge far before science recognized or accepted it. Yes, the Greeks appeared to recognize it also, but science as a whole chose to believe in things like the earth is flat, etc.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  87. ND,
    You said,
    "Using both the bible and secular sources, I can show that Daniel predicted the exact day that Y'shua would arrive on the scene."

    I'm still waiting........................

    ReplyDelete
  88. ND,
    You said,
    "I'm sorry Beam Stalk, you are wrong. The Hebrew word, used in Isaiah 40:22, is "khoog". And as Dan correctly stated, it does mean to encompass not just a circle. However, its root words, "khaw-gag" and "khaw-gaw" clearly shows that it implies sphericity. Don't feel bad, you don't know Hebrew and it is an easy mistake."

    You have a bad habit of making statements with no citations or supporting evidence.

    I can merely respond likewise, You are wrong.

    However, "A survey of Hebrew lexica and theological wordbooks----[James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible] yields much information about the key word hwg (chûgh) According to K. Seybold, its root appears six times in biblical Hebrew, and it is clear from its usage in context that it has a specifically geometrical meaning, that is, "a circle, as drawn with compasses." In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, meaning "to inscribe a circle."
    ----------Robert J. Schneider, Berea College

    ReplyDelete
  89. No Doubt,

    "take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13)
    A sphere doesn't have edges.....

    " "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)
    No sphere here!

    "[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
    (Matthew 4:1-12)

    Matt thought the earth was flat also.

    "The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11)
    Oopsie!

    Now, here is the verse where you claim that chung means sphere:
    "To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:18-23

    However, when the writer does intend the meaning as sphere, he uses the word, duwr, thusly,

    "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house." (Isaiah 22:18)
    The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.



    I have found in life when someone like you comes off as cndescending and arrogant, and are prone to not providing souces or citations, it usually means you are blowing smoke, which in this case you are.

    Now I can list a whole page of bible scholars who disagree with you, but, I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hey ND,

    OK, so many things to clear up.

    1. The "empty babbling" would come from both teams, right? If both sides could be right, these are not proof of God at all, and thus the whole discussion is empty babbling. So, no insult, unless we all want to feel insulted. In which case I will withdraw and let you guys continue.

    2. I said you seem to have only an entry level understanding of entropy. You have a much better grasp of the entry level than other posters here, which is a good thing. unfortunately, those other posters seem to have understood higher-level concepts jumping over the entry level ones. Which got them, perhaps, perplexed with your answers. This happens often times. Yet, entropy is not doing anything here as far as I see. I read your posts, and saw nothing. No clear claim.

    3. What the heck is "entropy level"? (not what is "entropy", but what is "entropy level"). I claimed the whole thing to be a red-herring. It is not insulting. It seems like something added as a distraction by whomever did that list of "finely-tuned constants" (classic definition of red-herring--entropy is not a constant).

    4. I know entropy beyond informational sciences. Yet, I see nothing mysterious to explain. I could not find any list at Dan's blog, unless we are talking about different Dans.

    5. I have no respect for physicists who just accept Christian idiocy such as "fine tuning" of the Universe. I have enough understanding to know that there is nothing of substance in this argument and, even without the idiocy and unwarranted assumptions, it backfires (see above).

    6. I thought you were another Dani'El, another guy who claims to be Jewish by some mysterious ways, and uses jewish words and such. Just like you. The thing is so odd, I could not believe it to be coincidence. Which proofs that "improbable" things can happen without any divine intervention.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  91. In "5" I meant I cannot have respect for that guy you claim to be at the University of Chicago. Not you.

    ReplyDelete
  92. ND,

    Okay, lets get technical. Froggie already covered sphere and circle, they are two different words. On to G-d.

    Deuteronomy 12:3-4

    "Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places.

    You must not worship YHWH your God in their way."

    In this passage, the Jews are instructed to destroy anything and everything associated with their rival’s gods, and they are not to let this happen to their own God. Writing G-d instead of God is one way to prevent others from destroying the name of God. Except that God is not his name, YHWH is.

    The law was interpreted to mean that Jews could not write down the name of God because it could be destroyed. The only time it is permitted is when it can't be destroyed, such as the Torah. In recent times, Rabbis have decided that writing it out on a computer or online is okay as long as the page is not printed out. Thus it is not a violation of the law, aka sin.

    So now please point out where I am being anti-semitic. What you have done is committed the logical fallacy ad hominem. You are calling me names instead of backing up your argument. This is just petty. Do you want to make any kind of logical argument, because so far I see none. If you are going to continue like so I will just stop responding to you because you are adding nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hey everyone,

    I haven't been on for a bit (Been busy). I don't have time to carry on discussions with everyone but I will have to pick and choose.

    BeamStalk:

    "There is no evidence any of the Gospels were eye witnesses"

    That is VERY STRONG statement. Do you know what evidence means? Have watch of that video done by Josh McDowell.

    "What Samaritan woman? Seriously, go read Acts, it was in a dream about eating shellfish that Peter decided it was time to preach to the Gentiles. Jesus himself called Gentiles dogs."

    Have you never heard of the woman at the well? John 4. Jesus sought to save her!...yes Peter had some learning to do but it does not mean ALL the disciples as you seem to imply. The gospel if for the Jew first, the Gentile second.

    "In Genesis, Birds appear before land animals, so that is scientifically incorrect. Light appears before the sun. The moon is called a source of light. So Genesis is therefor, by your standards, figurative."

    There are logical answers many of the problems you bring forth.

    "I am with Froggie on this. You don't understand the repercussions of the action of the world stopping. It would destroy the world."

    When I say...Why can't God stop the earth from spinning?...I mean God can do what he likes! Why can't he pause the universe and stall it's consequences?

    Is the earth meant as a Sphere or circle?

    Draw a picture of a soccer ball (I like soccer :)) is it a sphere or is it a circle?...It really doesn't matter. If I said the earth was a circle now, I would be right.
    Pedantic!

    Cya,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  94. Froggie said...
    "ND,
    You said,
    "Using both the bible and secular sources, I can show that Daniel predicted the exact day that Y'shua would arrive on the scene."

    I'm still waiting........................"

    It is called Daniel's seventy weeks and prophesies exactly over hundreds of years to the time of Christ. I'll leave ND to tell you the rest since he wanted to share it.

    ReplyDelete
  95. ND,

    "Isn't it amazing how the Word of G-d shows a level of knowledge far before science recognized or accepted it."

    Yes it is amazing!

    "I don’t think I ever said that they prove that G-d exists. I said we see this as devine intervention. You don’t. That’s fine. But to say that these priciples don’t exist and something weird is not going on is just not right"

    Yes, when I gave this post I did not mean it as proof but "evidence". It is good evidence as well. Design of this magnitude is amazing and make the thinker wonder why is it so? not just "Oh it is just like this because".

    cheers brother and Shalom to you!

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  96. G.E.

    "By the way. I just noticed that I like you much better here. My perception of you at Ray's was not that nice. Good to have met you under such different "environment.""

    At Ray's it is not the place to have deep discussions but rather surface debates (too much going on). If someone comes to me and is keenly searching for God or wanting to honestly discuss something I want to talk/help them.

    cheers DB

    ReplyDelete
  97. GE

    I was thinking the same thing about you :)(I'm not kidding) I like to reason respectfully when there is the chance.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  98. DB,

    "There is no evidence any of the Gospels were eye witnesses"

    That is VERY STRONG statement. Do you know what evidence means? Have watch of that video done by Josh McDowell.


    So, show me the evidence. What video?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hi, I'm Stan. Forgive me for intruding...

    I know that they are figurative because they are scientifically incorrect. 

    So... Ptolemy was speaking figuratively when he described his model for the solar system?

    People say the gospels are "contradictory" (I don't think they are) but if they were...that would be way stronger evidence FOR what actually happened in them! It would show they didn't get together and make it up. 

    What?! Contradictory accounts for a series of events is now proof that the series of events took place?!

    If you are annoyed that I believe the miracle of the earth stopping it's spin, then you should be annoyed about all miracles. 

    [No Doubt also offered a link regarding the alleged miracle in Joshua 10 of the Christian bible.]

    Speaking for myself, I get annoyed when people attempt natural explanations for supposed miracles. It reeks of special pleading, and it belittles the very deity the explanation seeks to vindicate. The problem, though, is that if god is so capable of instantaneous magical affectations, then why hasn’t he magically corrected for sin and the existence of evil in the first place?

    If it’s magic, it’s magic. No one can argue with that position, as it’s completely insulated. Of course, neither can a supporter of the magic position argue with any other assertion of magic – just because a magical variation is proposed does not mean both magical positions cannot both be true, and if there truly is a magical god, then clearly it could opt for multiple magical versions, even to the point that every possible perception is simply magical illusion.

    The existence of such magic renders any scientific endeavor meaningless, as any experimental result must be considered magical, and therefore irrelevant to any prediction, hypothesis, or theory.

    I'm just trying to make the best conclusion with the evidence that we have. 

    This may be your intent, but if so you have failed at your own goal. The conclusion you have drawn, that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe to support life as we know it points to the existence of a grand designer, is no better off than the converse – that the apparent fine-tuning of life as we know it (to exist in this universe) suggests there is no grand designer. The difference, though, is that the conclusion you’ve drawn begs the question – even if the universe is finely tuned to support life as we know it, there needn’t be any grand designer, much less the one you describe.

    The evidence says nothing to whether life is finely tuned for the universe, or the universe for life. Claiming the latter does seem to imply a willful agent, but this is unnecessary and presumptuous. The former seems more likely, considering the universe came before life. We do not say, for instance, that a particular hole is finely tuned to hold a maximum volume of water gravitationally bound to its shape (notwithstanding evaporation or absorption), nor do we say the water is finely tuned to fill the hole – rather, we recognize that the two are not necessarily dependent upon one another, and that the water behaved as water does, within physical constraints. So, too, with life as thus far observed in this universe.

    Your Anti-Semitism is shining through and you are so wrong. We write G-d out of respect. 

    ...but you call people anti-semitic as an insult? The ‘respect’ you show ‘g-d’ by omitting the vowel is pretty silly, and I’m no bigot. It’s identical to using replacement terms for expletives – if you mean “god,” but you type “g-d,” then there is no difference in what has been communicated, and if such a being exists, its name is clearly not “god,” and even if it has a name which we could fathom and/or pronounce, surely it would not be offended by its name being written or pronounced.

    I should think there are better ways of showing respect, even to an imaginary being.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Now as to entropy, I’ll first exhibit a dose of humility, and admit that I’m a current physics major (undergraduate), and my direct exposure to entropy has, to this point, been minimal. That being said, it is nonetheless my understanding that entropy never decreases in any closed system, so when you discussed as much, I must respectfully demand sources – this would be news indeed.

    The rate at which [the items] should be degrading indicates a slowing of entropy and in some cases, a slight reverse of entropy. 

    This quote shows your claim that entropy is decreasing “in some cases,” and if you would claim that these exceptions are closed systems, you must provide a source. If you are merely describing open systems, then no one argues that entropy can decrease in an open system – our survival depends on it.

    As to the rate at which entropy increases, several factors are involved in accurately calculating the rate of entropy increase: every factor. Since we are not privy to every extant factor in a real system, we are ill-equipped to pin down the precise change in entropy, but again, even with our limitations, we are quite familiar with changes in the rate at which entropy increases.

    As to “the items” which “should be degrading,” I’m not sure to which items you refer. Are you talking about the items in the OP? If so, few of which involve entropy at all, and many are responsible for entropy, even if we don’t yet understand exactly why. Again, then, I must ask exactly what does entropy have to do with fine-tuning?

    Lastly, you mentioned that you teach physics. At the risk of being unintentionally insulting, I must ask what level of physics you teach. Given the nature of your arguments, I struggle to believe you may be a college professor, although I have no difficulty believing you teach high school physics. In my high school physics class, the instructor was primarily a chemistry teacher, but evidently qualified (according to whom, I do not know) to teach physics. Pretty much all we did involved adding 2-D vectors, with some basic F=ma stuff (no calculus, even though all of us were concurrently enrolled in high school calculus). My instructor was completely unfamiliar with such rudimentary concepts as the trigonometric identities, however, as evidenced by his incredulous reaction when an intentionally unsimplified version of the Law of Cosines was used to solve a vector addition problem.

    I’m not saying you’re directly comparable to this man, but based on the apparent lack of qualifications to teach high school (or lower, if there is such a thing) physics, and your stated position on various physics-related concepts, I would not be surprised if your actual physics background involved far more “teaching” physics than learning it.

    I do not mean to insult, however, and do not presume to know your actual background or how current your education is. If I am wrong, I’m unafraid to admit as much, and I’ll happily apologize if I’ve insulted you or your intelligence. As I said, I’m a current undergrad student, and I prefer the fact that I have much yet to learn over the alternative.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  101. Froggie,

    “I'm still waiting........................"

    I’m sorry….I didn’t mean to ignore you.

    DB is correct. The prophecy is called the seventy weeks of Daniel. The precise prediction comes from comes from the first 69 weeks. I will try to keep it short. If any clarification is needed, please ask. I don’t want to bog down the blog.

    Keep in mind, this prophecy is the first 69 weeks not the full 70 weeks.

    First the scripture: Daniel 9:25

    “Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks…”

    As you can see, the verse is unambiguous and quite clear. While Daniel was praying, Gabriel came to him and told him that there will be 69 weeks between the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem will be 69 weeks. In Hebraic prophecy and time accounting, there are a week of day, a week of weeks, a week of months and the week of years. In this case, it turned out to be a week of years. Also, a Jewish year is 360 days.

    With that said, this prophecy is saying there will be:

    69 weeks of years from the commandment until the Messiah. That is 69 * 7 * 360 days, which equals 173,880 days.

    When was the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem given. I won’t bog you down with all the background unless you need it. At that time, I would gladly give it all to you.

    According to Nehemiah, this decree was given during the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which according to historians was 445 BC. In case you want to check this, go to:

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

    Nehemiah also said that it was on the first day of the Hebrew Month of Nisan, which would put it on the 14th of March on our calendar.

    If we add the days of the prophecy to the date of the decree, we arrive at April 6th, 32 AD.

    March 14, 445 BC + 173,880 days of Daniel’s prophecy = April 6th, 32 AD.

    April 6th, 32 AD is the 10th of Nisan on the Jewish Calendar.

    The 10th of Nisan, 32 AD was four days before Passover, the day Y’shua was crucified. The only day that Y’shua allowed others to proclaim him as the Messiah during what most Christians call the Triumphant Entry.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  102. Stan,

    "Now as to entropy, ... my direct exposure to entropy has, to this point, been minimal."

    You're corect. Come back when you're better informed.

    "As I said, I’m a current undergrad student, and I prefer the fact that I have much yet to learn over the alternative."

    Please tell me the institution you attend. I want to make sure my grandchildren don't attend.

    It amazes me that people claim to be undergraduate students when any search of Basic Physics on the net shows their ignorance of the subject. No insult intended...just the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Beam Stalk,

    Your understanding of Hebrew amazes me. LOL, LOL,LOL.

    I'm not going to argue Hebrew with someone whose understanding comes from the internet, instead of living it.

    BTW...When you ridicule ones background, or his reverence for G-d, in this case Jewish, It's called Anti-Semitic. It appears that you need to bone up on your english as well as your Physics and Hebrew.

    ReplyDelete
  104. GE,

    "I have no respect for physicists who just accept Christian idiocy such as "fine tuning" of the Universe."

    Meet Brandon Carter, Australian theoretical physicist and Atheists. Who came up with the "idiocy" of fine tuning.

    Carter said: "Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent."

    BTW...you do appear to have a desire to intelligently discuss the topics at hand. I want you to know that I appreciate that.

    Even though we both think each other is wacked. :-). LOL

    ReplyDelete
  105. ND,

    Your Anti-Semitism is shining through and you are so wrong. We write G-d out of respect. Something you’re obviously not aware of.

    I would say that this is exactly what Beam said. That you do this "out-of-respect". He was clearly right. He was also clearly right that you think that God is a name, rather than a title.

    Calling Beam anti-Semitic because the idea comes from a misinterpreted Jewish tradition is plainly stupid. You earned the adjective, so do not come back saying I insulted you. You do not like it? OK then do not jump into these kinds of unfounded accusations. Remember it was you who said: "Let's keep the accusations to a minimum."

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Meet Brandon Carter, Australian theoretical physicist and Atheists. Who came up with the "idiocy" of fine tuning.

    Then this gets in the list of non-respectable physicists. If what you say is true. But I doubt it.

    And the argument keeps backfiring.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  107. It amazes me that people claim to be undergraduate students when any search of Basic Physics on the net shows their ignorance of the subject. No insult intended...just the facts. 

    Excellent, No Doubt. Please now tell me just what grade you teach, so I, too, can ensure that my children avoid you as a "physics" teacher. Are you sure you didn't mean to say you're a "physical education" teacher?

    I attend CU-Boulder. I am entering my junior year as a physics major, and will be taking E-M 1 and Classic Mech 2 next semester. What were your credentials, again?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  108. BeamStalk,

    This is the link to the video.
    http://vessel-of-clay.blogspot.com/2009/07/josh-mcdowell-on-evidence-for-bible.html

    I can't remember whether he goes into the authors of the gospels but does a good overview of his book which defends the accuracy of the New Testament and I mean merely "overview".

    Check it out.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  109. Stan, the Half-Truth Teller,

    With a name like that I wonder whether I can take what you say seriously or not? LOL

    "What?! Contradictory accounts for a series of events is now proof that the series of events took place?!"

    Careful with the use of words. There is a difference between evidence and proof.
    Yes, views of the different authors of the gospels differ but only on angle rather than content. Which is evidence of separate witnesses and not a gathered fraud. If it was a fraud then I would have done a much better job of it :)

    "Speaking for myself, I get annoyed when people attempt natural explanations for supposed miracles."

    You are right...but if there is a natural explanation then why not accept it? God is God and even some people question His ability which is belittling. I have no problem with Joshua's account.

    "It reeks of special pleading, and it belittles the very deity the explanation seeks to vindicate. The problem, though, is that if god is so capable of instantaneous magical affectations, then why hasn’t he magically corrected for sin and the existence of evil in the first place?"

    God is not responsible for our evil! WE ARE. Us stinking humans who stuff up His world!
    Existence of evil? Shifting the blame are you?
    How can you possibly have loyalty without the opportunity to be disloyal?

    God has given you and I the way out of sin and yet you simply blame God and reject what He has done for you and I. He has paid our price OUR sin...which is death.

    Come to Him bro.

    A note about Fine tuning...some of you guys struggle to accept the possibility of a designer where there appears to be complex formations or design.
    The fact that you guys are so up in arms about this topic makes me wonder whether there is something to this argument.

    ReplyDelete
  110. ND,

    You are a troll. This is my last response to you. I don't have "live it" as you say. I can ask Rabbis, and they agree with me. Rabbi Jeffrey W. Goldwasser has said, "In recent years, some Jews have carried the practice even further by abstaining from writing the English word "God" and substituting the spelling, "G-d" or "Gd." However, there is no prohibition in Jewish law from writing "God" in any language other than Hebrew. In fact, there is an often repeated story about Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, z"l, one of the foremost authorities of Modern Orthodoxy, who intentionally would write and erase the word "God" (in English) on the blackboard in front of his students at Yeshiva University in order to emphasize the fact this is not prohibited by Jewish law."

    http://judaism.about.com/od/reformjudaismfaq/f/god_spelling.htm

    Or you can ask Rabbi Tuvia Hoffman. "Any Hebrew name of G-d is forbidden to erase. From the Torah's exhortation to destroy idolatry, we learn out the prohibition not to destroy the name of G-d. (see Deuteronomy 12:3-4)

    The English word "G-d" is actually a matter of dispute as to its degree of holiness. On one hand, we treat the name "G-d" with great reverence as well, for example, by spelling it with a hyphen. On the other hand, it is sometimes more confusing for people to see it with a dash, and spelling out the full God actually inspires more reverence!"

    http://www.thewesternwall.com/the_o.htm

    But hey you know more than Rabbis right, because you lived it.

    ReplyDelete
  111. DB,

    I am watching the video. I see the truth is so important that he is pitching a book. What are his degrees in? All it says is that he went to seminary.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Sorry I see Master of Divinity, now. I just missed it the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  113. ND,
    You said to Stan,
    "It amazes me that people claim to be undergraduate students when any search of Basic Physics on the net shows their ignorance of the subject. No insult intended...just the facts."

    The fat is you are wrong.
    See I can do what you're doing.
    You never back up what you are saying.

    You ran away like a coward after I debunked your grand pronouncements about the word "circle."

    Just because you like to try to pass yourself off as some Jewish authority has no effect on the arguments here. You need data, citation, and sources.

    You may even have people in your church looking up to you as some world's foremost authority, but that only works with undereducated credulous morons.

    I suspect that you cannot actually engage in a valid discussion of entropy because in reality, you do not understand it, thus you just shoot your mouth off telling everybody they are wrong.

    People that do what you are doing are called Trolls.

    Da Bomb,
    With all due respect to you and your fine little blog, I apologize for becomeing weary of ND's fractured logic and arguments from authority.

    I was most interested in taking up the discussion that you and Ex-Patt had started.
    Specifically about you views on an old earth, but as you can see, there is no possibility of having a reasoned discussion with ND interjecting his vague circumlocutions with no explanations. He's avoided responding to most of the important points.

    Thank you for the explanation of the prophecy. That is quite interesting and I plan to learn more about it.

    In the meantime, take care and please understand that some of the "hostility" that has resulted here is squarely the fault of ND, who seems to think he is somehow a superior being of some kind.

    I know Beamer, Stan, BF, and they all desire measured and reasonable discussion, but they will respond in kind to absurd and continued unfounded claims. They (and I) are merely giving what we're getting from ND and I don't want you to think we are picking on you. I have a son just slightly younger than you and I enjoy the opinions of smart kids like yourself.

    If Beamer, Stan, et al disagree with me on this, I am sure they will articulate that!

    Take care, young man!

    ReplyDelete
  114. No Doubt,

    This is the second time I've seen you call someone an anti-Semite without good reason in the past few weeks (last time it was because Ryk noted something along the lines of; "all fundies are the same, the only way I can tell you're a different person is because you say 'Shalom' at the end of your comments").

    Behaving in this way does nothing for the discussion and generally gives people a bad impression of both you and your position.

    You're rudeness to both Stan and Beams is totally unnecessary and your inability (or unwillingness) to actually respond seriously to their responses is very telling.

    Regards,

    Hey Da Bomb; over 100 comments, congrats!

    ReplyDelete
  115. Yes, views of the different authors of the gospels differ but only on angle rather than content. Which is evidence of separate witnesses and not a gathered fraud. If it was a fraud then I would have done a much better job of it :) 

    This is presumptuous, even if reasonably fair play; I'm not necessarily claiming the gospel writers were promoting fraud, but your statement that "if [the gospels] were [contradictory]...that would be way stronger evidence FOR what actually happened in them," is nothing short of preposterous. Sure, a directed effort at promoting a fraudulent 'history' of Jesus would likely have been better written, but to suggest that contradiction is somehow evidence that the stories are true?!

    Wouldn't that logic mean that despite the inconsistencies in the 'witness' testimony against Jesus, the charges leveled against him should be considered true?

    I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. If the bible is divinely inspired, by an omniscient/omnipotent being, then expecting absolute accuracy is hardly unreasonable. Even the appearance of inconsistency is enough to say, 'Nope, that's not the product of omniscience/omnipotence.' Even if you disagree, though, there is no way you can honestly say that contradiction is evidence for veracity, which is precisely what you did say, even if unwittingly.

    You are right...but if there is a natural explanation then why not accept it?

    ...

    I have no problem with Joshua's account.
     

    Well, there are two problems here; I'll use your earlier statement to attempt an illustration:

    I know that they are figurative because they are scientifically incorrect. 

    This statement gives away your true position: That science is the authority, and not the bible. This is the first, and most glaring problem, although I readily admit it is only a problem if there is an insistence on literal interpretations of 'miraculous' events.

    The second problem is that there isn't a natural explanation for these 'miraculous events.' We cannot accept what does not exist, and thus the Joshua account of the long day must be denied -- there is no natural explanation whatsoever which can cause this allegedly long day to seem plausible. There is no evidence whatsoever that such an event ever took place, and there are several examples of similar legends in other cultures which we have no problem dismissing as purely mythological. Why would this one be any different?

    If there were a plausible natural explanation for the Joshua account, we could discuss it -- but there isn't. Instead, the most plausible explanation is that it didn't happen that way, and was an otherwise normal solar day.

    God is not responsible for our evil! WE ARE. Us stinking humans who stuff up His world!
    Existence of evil? Shifting the blame are you?
     

    I'm not trying to turn this into a PoE thread, and I didn't blame god for our evil, or evil in general. If you wish to explore the PoE, I'm happy to do so, but in the statement to which the above objection applies, I was merely noting that, insofar as a denial, of the possibility that god could suspend physical law such that a long day was experienced without the catastrophic effects we'd expect, is ludicrous, so, too, is a denial that god could just as well have fixed everything before a single soul entered hell.

    I mean, if we're invoking magic, why stop at a long day? Let's fix the whole universe a single unit of Planck time after Adam sinned!

    Unless there isn't a god capable of such a miracle, of course...

    I'm not shifting the blame per se, but if god is able to do magic, then let's see some magic.

    ReplyDelete
  116. [S]ome of you guys struggle to accept the possibility of a designer where there appears to be complex formations or design.

    I readily accept the possibility of a designer, but I see no compelling evidence of any such thing. What I do see is the deliberate shoe-horning of data to give the appearance of 'design,' though as I have pointed out, we cannot reliably detect design.

    A common exercise in an entry-level programming course is to use a looped series of instructions to generate an image. When an image is thus generated, is it fair to say that the programmer "designed" the image? Clearly, he didn't necessarily know what was going to be generated, yes? In a similar vein, then, we cannot attribute to god the 'design' of all things, even if god began the process by defining the constants and the physical laws. Moreover, if we cannot distinguish between a 'designed via program' image and a randomly generated one, then why don't we practice some healthy skepticism and admit that we cannot determine if the universe is designed or not?

    I have to do some yardwork -- back later.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  117. Da Bomb,

    I did not have room to cover everything in those videos here. So I posted a comment on my blog Rioting Mind - http://riotingmind.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-evidence-that-demands-verdict.html

    I hope you get a chance to read over it.

    In summary, his argument was somewhat logical, there were a few fallacies. I just don't accept his premise. His premise is that the gospels were eye witnesses and the two that definitely weren't were transcribed by eye witnesses. He never provides proof for this, he just states it. His main premise is not only are they eye witnesses, they are perfect eye witnesses. Which that is easily defeated by asking who went to the empty tomb and what/who did they find there. It is different in all the gospels. His premise is what everything he said hinges on. It is possible he has better evidence in hsi book, but I am not paying to get proof of the "Truth". If my soul is truly in peril and he has the answer he should be giving it away not making money off of it. This sounds similar to selling animals for offerings in the temple. I believe that was frowned upon in the stories contained in his "Truth"

    ReplyDelete
  118. Stan,

    I have time to reply to this thread:

    "This statement gives away your true position: That science is the authority, and not the Bible."

    No, I just believe that science and scripture must be reconciled. I believe the Bible IS the Truth.

    "I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. If the bible is divinely inspired, by an omniscient/omnipotent being, then expecting absolute accuracy is hardly unreasonable"

    The Bible is not inaccurate in an absolute sense. It is however written by different people with different personalities. God did not use them like typewriter but rather guided them. I see that God is soooo big that He did do this. God is a diverse God that gave us a real life account of Him and His actions not some text book.

    "god could just as well have fixed everything before a single soul entered hell."

    He has fixed everything except only some people accept His "fixing". If God fixed us without our will then there is no such thing as loyalty. How can we be loyal to Him without the opportunity to be disloyal?

    cheers,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  119. EPM,

    "Hey Da Bomb; over 100 comments, congrats!"

    Doesn't mean much, except possibly that people aren't listening :) If someone gets saved...then I will be rejoicing.

    ReplyDelete
  120. BeamStalk,

    "there were a few fallacies"

    All beliefs are based on assumptions...even atheism. We need to take the best answer with the evidence we have.
    When I have time I will look at your blog.
    Hope your found it interesting.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  121. Assumptions are not fallacies. I am referring to logical fallacies. It is a break down in logic.

    The only claim atheists make is that they believe there is no god or gods. There is no assumption. Lack of belief is not an assumption it is a default position.

    I am not claiming there are no gods just that I don't believe there are any. I have never found adequate proof of a god, much less any specific god.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Assumptions are just assumptions, there is nothing behind them without corroborating evidence. Multiple lines of evidence from differing sources that point to the same conclusion. This is how hypotheses become Theories. There is no one thing that proves evolution on its own (I am preparing to be quote mined now). Instead it is several lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion from independent research. Science does not start with the conclusion, it starts with the facts and tries to discover what the facts are saying. Darwin didn't start with Natural Selection and look to see what confirmed it. He started by looking at nature, all of nature. He let nature speak to him, not him imprinting on nature. This is how science is done. If it hadn't been Darwin, it would have been someone else (Alfred Wallace actually came up with a similar idea of Natural Selection shortly after Darwin, independent of Darwin).

    Science starts with nature and lets nature speak to it.

    ReplyDelete
  123. BeamStalk,

    "I have never found adequate proof of a god"

    I have never found adequate proof of no God. We start with the assumption that the gospels were eyewitnesses and if there excellent evidence to show otherwise then we must consider it. Josh Mcdowell brought forth good evidence in support of the New Testament.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  124. DB,
    First, it is good to see that ND has bowed out of the discussion, as most frauds do when they are called out on their absurdities.

    Next you say,
    "I have never found adequate proof of no God. We start with the assumption that the gospels were eyewitnesses and if there excellent evidence to show otherwise then we must consider it."

    You show that you know not where of you speak. You fall into the default position of belief based on what you have been told.

    If you will read the first chapter of "Luke," you will see that he states he was not an eyewitness, that the stories were brought to him through the "generations."

    There are equally as compelling evidence to show that none of the other gospels were eyewitness accounts. In none of the gospels do the writers identify themselves and John was written in the third person and ever writes of his own death. Curious, that.
    Suffice to say that in "Luke" there in incontovertible evidence that he was not an eyewitness.

    We can discuss the other three later, if you wish to.

    Thanks for your reasoned dicussion on these matters,
    Froggie/ Dale

    ReplyDelete
  125. How can it be that 99% of Christians proclaim that the gospels are eyewiness accounts when the gospel of Luke admits that he is not an eyewitness?

    How can that be?

    And when one finds this gross incongruity, does that not throw a shadow of doubt upon other proclamations of Christian leaders?

    ReplyDelete
  126. The vast majority of so called christians have been culturally conditioned since birth to belive without question the absurd interpretation of scripture.

    Da Bomb/ Dan, You are a prime example. You state you read the bible but you never noticed that Luke stated he was not an eye witness?
    I think you are a product of your cultural conditioning and have squandered your identity to those that lie to you.

    ReplyDelete
  127. How can we be loyal to Him without the opportunity to be disloyal? 

    See, I don't think this is relevant. Who cares if we have the opportunity to be disloyal or loyal, and who cares if we ever exist at all? Rather than worry about nonsense such as this, I should think an omniscient/omnipotent being's first order of business -- if it is truly 'good' -- would be to ensure that none of its creation could possibly encounter any scenario in which eternal torment may be realized. If that means removing "free will," and the "opportunity to be disloyal," then so be it. Anyway, as I understand Christian mythology (former Christian, here), heaven will be devoid of "free will," so it's not like we're talking about a dangerous precedent. Even if you argue that heaven's denizens will have "free will," but won't want to leave or do wrong, there is no basis for such a premise, considering that Adam and Eve were in as near a situation as heaven as one can get, and even they failed. In addition, prior to their failure, Satan, and a full third of the 'heavenly host,' intentionally chose to rebel -- it seems that lots of individuals dislike the way things work in heaven, or in the spiritual realm.

    Again, it does not seem unreasonable to expect an omniscient/omnipotent being -- a 'good' one, anyway -- to make things work such that none shall experience eternal torment.

    Anyway, you're right -- this is turning away from the Fine-tuning Argument for the existence of god, and becoming a version of the PoE. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, right?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  128. Froggie,

    My apologies,

    I said: "We start with the assumption that the gospels were eyewitnesses".

    And you ran with it...a long way. I was wrong in my statment and I knew previously before hand that Luke was not an eye witness...I should have put "writers with use of primary resources". Besides why cannot someone write about themselves in the thrid person should they so desire? It depends on why it was written. Acts if I remember correctly talks about "we" in a case/cases. So the writer was around in the time of Paul. A Theologian thought that the book of Acts should be one with luke and it was written as a defence for Paul when he was on trial. This is VERY near the life of Jesus. I remember on another blog an atheist had the honesty to say that the accounts of Jesus were too close from when He lived that there was not enough time for it to become a myth. (Note he still rejected it as true :) ).

    "Thanks for your reasoned dicussion on these matters,
    Froggie/ Dale"

    Thankyou also, much more constructive than talking with dimensio or someone like that :).
    By the way, I thought you had enough of my rediculous interpretations of the Bible and you were going to leave? LOL Good to have you stay.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  129. Stan,

    "Who cares if we have the opportunity to be disloyal or loyal"

    I do and apparently God does:)

    "heaven will be devoid of "free will,""
    Obviously this is a big topic but the way I see it...the ones who are there had freewill choice to go there.

    "Again, it does not seem unreasonable to expect an omniscient/omnipotent being -- a 'good' one, anyway -- to make things work such that none shall experience eternal torment."

    Depends where you get your idea of good from?
    I think God is so good that He will judge evil doers and reward "humble" or "subject to God" good doers.

    cheers,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  130. Still going with the mockery :(

    "First, it is good to see that ND has bowed out of the discussion, as most frauds do when they are called out on their absurdities."

    Or it is more likely (possibly) because he was outnumbered and no matter what he said it would seem he was wrong. I can not help him because physics is not something I know a lot about. Give him a brake. I recon he sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
    Thanks Keith for all the discussions!

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  131. With all due respect, DB, No Doubt does not sound like someone who knows what he is talking about, unless you don't know what he's talking about.

    He cited entropy as being a key element to virtually every item on your list, yet when called on it, he mocked those of us who are actually familiar with physics, and went so far as to claim to teach physics (in some unknown capacity).

    As to the examples he used to support his position, the first was the third result of a Google search for "sun earth entropy": the homework problem 'example,' which didn't say anything to his claims. All of us familiar in the slightest with the notion of entropy accept that the earth experiences an apparent increase in order (a decrease in entropy) as a result of the energy input from the sun, and likewise all of us are aware that the sun-earth system taken in isolation experiences a net increase in entropy.

    This belies a basic understanding of entropy, nothing more. I should expect someone who teaches physics in a more credible capacity than, say, rudimentary high school physics, to have at the ready an example more compelling than one which describes a given, and I'd also expect such a person to have access to an example not found in the top three hits of the first Google search I tried, as a guess that No Doubt had found his 'example' in exactly the same fashion.

    Among his other examples included a link to an abstract for an article in Nature, which may support his contention that DNA is "digital," given the definition of the term he's apparently chosen, but which does not support any other view he holds, and seems instead to directly counter them. Rather than expand too much on this, though, I'll let him answer on his own the question I already posed regarding this article:

    Please identify the "three diverse time spans" across which the Nature article you referenced describes the "digital information in genomes" as operating. 

    If he answers, I expect it should shed some light on why this article doesn't particularly help his position.

    His other "supporting" links were to two very Christian, very layman, and very unconvincing sites which quite uncritically support anything and everything the bible says. Not exactly compelling, those.

    The last link he offered was to an abstract-only regarding a conference, which seemed to be an outline of the minutes of the meeting more than anything else, and which again only supported his assertion that DNA is "digital" in the sense that it (DNA) employs a finite set of 'characters.' As to the error checking he suggested, it was not found using the method the abstract described.

    When I provided my credentials for No Doubt, I did so in good faith, and an apparently unappreciated dose of humility, on the off chance that he may know what he was talking about, and be willing to supply either his own credentials, or a detailed response to our queries regarding his insistence that entropy is involved in virtually every item in your list. He even suggested that some closed systems exhibit a decrease in entropy, and used this suggestion to bolster his claim that physicists were baffled, and that god is evidently the only available answer.

    Given his response to me, and to the questions we've posed -- in good faith, with no small amount of experience in physics -- I have to conclude that his claims of physics brilliance are purely fraudulent. If he is a physics instructor, I'd guess it to be at a small-potatoes Christian high school with a dozen or so seniors, perhaps two of whom are taking "physics" from him.

    If I am wrong, I encourage him to show me where and how, and to answer the specific question regarding the Nature article.

    As for you, though, DB... You're all right.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  132. Dan,
    You said,
    "I remember on another blog an atheist had the honesty to say that the accounts of Jesus were too close from when He lived that there was not enough time for it to become a myth."

    The Gospel of Mark is dated by a vast majority of scholars as having been written in 65 - 70 AD.
    This is not close to Jesus' death.

    There may have been a source document, but it has never been found or authenticated. Thje stories were probably handed down through oral traditions.

    Think of it like this. After a story is told orally, in clinical settings, five times, it is usually unrecognizeable from the original.
    Mark was written 30 -35 years after Jesus' supposed death. With no documentation coming from eyewitnesses, there is absolutely no way the gospels can be considered reliable.
    Matthew and Luke used mark as a reference, but even then changes were made, possibly because they did not think their source would survive.

    People have problems remembering what happened a week ago (think about it) let alone what happened thirty years ago and then having the story told and retold.

    The most important part is that scholars agree that Mark was written 35 years after Jesus' death.

    You can look this up easily enough but if you'd like some links, let me know.

    Peace out,
    Dale

    ReplyDelete
  133. I didn't bow out. I just refuse to continue banging my head against the wall with someone who arbitrarily picks and choses what he wants to believe.

    Anytime, you want to honestly discuss it, I'm around.

    BTW, even though the conversation got heated toward the end, there is no hard feelings. Sometimes you've got to be blunt to be heard.

    Stan, it appears that you are from Denver. If you go to UD, then catch up with Professor Williams and tell him ODIE says hey. BTW he has a Masters in Physics. He can set you straight if you let him.

    G-d Bless

    Hey Dan,

    Thanks for your comments and the same back at you. I've got to go tend to this big ol bump on my head. ;-)

    Your Brother,

    Keith

    ReplyDelete
  134. Froggie,

    I couldn't help but comment on your Pluto blog. Hope you enjoy it. It's all in fun.

    ND

    ReplyDelete
  135. Stan, it appears that you are from Denver. If you go to UD, then catch up with Professor Williams and tell him ODIE says hey. BTW he has a Masters in Physics. He can set you straight if you let him. 

    Nope. CU-Boulder -- the state university, not the city university. If I ever find myself on DU's campus, I'll attempt to look up this Williams fellow, though mostly to find out more about just who you are. I'm sure he has more knowledge and experience in physics than either of us, but my professors all have doctorates, and my TAs are all grad students at or beyond the M.S. level (my school doesn't offer a Master's in physics).

    Wait -- I take that back. My linear algebra and differential equations instructor at my community college didn't have a Ph.D. -- he had done all the coursework, but no dissertation.

    Anyway, I'm still awaiting an answer from you regarding the Nature article, and a statement as to your actual credentials (no personal information necessary) with respect to physics and your claim that you "teach physics."

    Either way, I rather enjoy DB thus far, so if you stick around, we'll interact more, I'm sure.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  136. Froggie have a look at Josh Mcdowell's video. He'll give you something more to think about. I think it is the post above this one.

    "Mark was written 30 -35 years after Jesus' supposed death".

    Yep, only 30-35 years after? Amazing. Eyewitnesses would/could have been well alive then. To say they forgot is assumption.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
  137. oops, Dale I meant :) Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  138. DB,

    You said,

    ""Mark was written 30 -35 years after Jesus' supposed death".

    Yep, only 30-35 years after? Amazing. Eyewitnesses would/could have been well alive then. To say they forgot is assumption."

    That is disengenuous at best.

    You are sidestepping my arguments against this eventuality which are:

    1- A story that is passed down orally for a period of over a couple years WILL be radically altered.

    2- "only 35 years."
    25 years after the Kennedy assasination people were asked to recount the event. Even though they could remember where they were when they heard the news and watched news broadcasts for days on the developments, they failed miserably at recounting any facts pertaining to the event.

    35 years from now you might think you remember a certain event but it is well shown tht you will be wrong. Biases creep in rapidly.

    3- "only 35 years"
    The average age expetancy of people in the first century was approximately 35 years. So if an eyewitness was 20 at the time of Jesus he would have been very ancient indeed at age 55.
    There would have been very few people that were age twenty at the time of Jesus that would have survived to age 55.

    4- If we look at the Battle of Gettysburg, documentation that was written as the battle was taking place still exists. That is considered very strong textual evidence. Also different writers were in total agreement on most of the activities.
    I guarantee you that if they had waited 35 years to write the story we would not have a fair accounting of the battle.

    5- One glaring omission is that there is nowhere found a physical description of Jesus. any eyewitness would have described his countenance in some manner. Even if they were speaking the story, surely someone would have asked, since they witnessed this, what did he look like?

    I did an exercise back in college. We took a field trip to Niagra Falls for a geology class.
    (The exercise I used for an a paper I wrote for a class in expository prose)

    I took notes throughout the day. We went to different locations and examined the geology but we took some time for some fun too and went up in the skylon tower, etc.
    From my notes, that evening I wrote the story, in prose about the days events. I didn't go into drop dead detail, but I included the people there, the routes we traveled, and et.

    After nine weeks I sat down and wrote the story from memory and it became very apparent how our memories change over time. I am certain that after a year it would have been all but lost except for a couple high points. I urge you to try this some time when you do something eventful. Mimick the detail you find in the gospels.

    Here is another experiment that you could try.
    Write a story. Four decent paragraphs would do, maybe even three. Set with a friend and read them the story, slowly and succinctly. Take a few minutes to help them internalize the details.

    Have them wait 48 hours and tell the story to another friend from memory.
    Do four cycles with the last person writing down the story. Compare that with you first written copy and I guarantee you will be laughing hysterically at the results.

    DB, I am not asking you to believe one word I write. I am just asking to think critically rather than zipping off a statement like, "yup. "only" 35 years. Amazing."
    That's avoidance talk.

    Thanks for you interest in these matters,
    Dale

    ReplyDelete
  139. No Doubt,


    I did some research and when John Carlstrom, stated:

    "We're stuck with this preposterous universe."

    As you quoted him as saying, he was not talking about entropy affecting universal constants, he was commenting on a prediction that was confirmed concerning the polarity of the cosmic microwave background:

    http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=255

    This was further confirmation of our understanding of the expansion of the universes following the Big Bang.


    You made it sound like he was responding to a comment like; "Why are the constants not degrading at the same rate as everything else [due to entropy]?"

    Why would you willingly misrepresent him like this?

    Or did he say it again at another time?

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  140. To add to what Dale said. When they finally did start writing everything down, how many literate people were there in the Christian community? Now what does literacy mean in that day and age?

    There was a scribe in Karanis, Egypt in the 2nd Century named Petaus. He was brought in on a dispute where another scribe, named Ischyrion, was being called illiterate. Petaus determined that Ischyrion was not illiterate because he could sign his name. That was one scribes test for literacy, being able to sign your name.

    Petaus himself could not do much more than this himself. There is actually a papyrus of him practicing signing off on a document. In the first four of the group he is right. But the fifth time he left the first letter of the last word off. He repeated this mistake the remaining seven times. That is to say, the actual government scribe could not read what he was writing.

    Now, take this to the early church who could not hire scribes just for copying, instead used whoever they could find in the church. How accurate do you think they would be at copying for a few hundred years until the church was able to turn monks into scribes (even then mistakes creep in).

    ReplyDelete
  141. Hey Dale n BS,

    "I am just asking to think critically rather than zipping off a statement like, "yup. "only" 35 years. Amazing.""

    Ok I'll think critically.

    "The average age expetancy of people in the first century was approximately 35 years"

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

    This makes out that the average ages included child death.
    And it says,
    "It is important to note that life expectancy rises sharply in all cases for those who reach puberty. A pre 20th Century individual who lived past the teenage years could expect to live to an age close to the life expectancy of today."

    I noticed that you talked about people from the "first century".
    To what people do you refer? Romans, Africans...or Jews.
    Jews kept the kosher laws which are as far as I know quite healthy. would that not suggest that they could live longer?

    "One glaring omission is that there is nowhere found a physical description of Jesus. any eyewitness would have described his countenance in some manner. Even if they were speaking the story, surely someone would have asked, since they witnessed this, what did he look like?"

    I don't think this is "necessary".

    Concerning people's memories. I seem to rememeber McDowell making a good point that those communities would have corrected each other and multiple eyewitness (of the resurrection) etc would have corrected each other. If one person was trying to remember it, it would be a different story :) and less trustworthy.

    If there are multiple accounts of something that dis-agree with each other. I am sure that common threads will be through each one from which we can dicern the real story.
    Do you think that could happen with the Kennedy story? Compare wrong stories and take common threads?

    Hmmm some of my critical thoughts anyway :) and I even referenced :)

    BS,

    Paul would have been literate. I am sure that there would have been plenty literate people in the church. I don't think a strong critical argument could be made with illiteracy.

    cheers guys,

    DB

    Have a great weekend

    ReplyDelete