Science and God

[Darkforbid]

Your wishful thinking does not lead to the rejection of the multiverse hypothesis. It is not pure speculation, nor is significant evidence to justify a conclusion, yet.

There is no such thing as ultra ultra ultra fine tuning. Fine tuning is a hypothetical hypothesis to justify a Theist agenda.

OK so why for did Hawkins promoted Top-down cosmology as why we inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants

If as you say 'Fine tuning is a hypothetical hypothesis to justify a Theist agenda'

 

[shunyadragon]

OK so why for did Hawkins promoted Top-down cosmology as why we inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants

If as you say 'Fine tuning is a hypothetical hypothesis to justify a Theist agenda'

Careful on how you cite Hawkins, and what fine tuning is from his view. I may follow up.

In the Theist view fine tuning is an argument for the existence of God, from Hawkins view I do not believe it is, He stated fine-tuning only as in the scientific 'IF' proposition, not inevitable, and an atheist.

Plantinga is a representative of the Theist perspective.

"One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument. It's as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen, if there is such a person as God."

— Alvin Plantinga, "The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum"

 

[Darkforbid]

Careful on how you cite Hawkins, and what fine tuning is from his view. I may follow up.

In the Theist view fine tuning is an argument for the existence of God, from Hawkins view I do not believe it is,

Fine tuning argument are arguments within science

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your wishful thinking does not lead to the rejection of the multiverse hypothesis. It is not pure speculation, nor is significant evidence to justify a conclusion, yet.

There is no such thing as ultra ultra ultra fine tuning. Fine tuning is a hypothetical hypothesis to justify a Theist agenda.

Could you at least be honest? Fine tuning is not limited to Theism.
As for the multi-verse here is one scientist's view of that:

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, The New York Times, "A Brief History of the Multiverse"

Another -

Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.

As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here.... In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.

— George Ellis, Scientific American, "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?"

So what is it, I know and I am not a scientist. I know, the limit of knowledge as human behavior in this everyday world and I can spot both when someone claims knowledge using the word "science" or the word "God".

Here is a proponent of the multi-verse.

[A]n entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler... (Similarly), the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all... A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm.[59][73]

— Max Tegmark

Note the highlight. That comes down to an emotion, wasteful and aesthetics, inelegant. His whole argument rests in the end on what makes sense to him in his brain; i.e. it is subjective. No different that some theists. They share that the world must be as it makes sense to them individually and subjectively. BTW the quote from Max Tegmark is a case of fine tuning. He fine tunes the math and then declares that it must be so, because it doesn't make sense to him otherwise.
Some aspects of science are not really science for the everyday world, it is an odd mixture of philosophy and subjectivity.

So what is your answer? Remember I am a global skeptic and I have seen most versions of people confusing objective and subjective. You might have solved it, but I doubt it. The western myth of reason, logic(math) and evidence is that, a myth. It's actual falsification is of the theory of everything is that I can believe differently. So can everybody else. Everything includes subjectivity, but is not just subjective.

So:

Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances. (The notion is distinct from that of a natural law—i.e., a law of right or justice supposedly derived from nature.) ...
Law of nature | logic

So here is a question: Can there be one law or combination of laws, which universally hold for all instances for all of the natural world and not just the physical parts?
And I just answer: No! That is the falsification of the psychology of some humans, whether they use science or religion. They believe in the same regularity, an universal one, which holds of all cases, thus it amounts to always a positive outcome even if only for all humans in the in the end moral sense and I just answer with the negative: No!

Now you are off The Baha'i Faith, so you want good for humans. Well, in practice that amounts to a combination of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. And no matter how nice you do it, I don't fall for the Laws of Nature always ending up with a positive outcome. I am a skeptic, so the negative is my line of work.

 

[Darkforbid]

Could you at least be honest? Fine tuning is not limited to Theism.
As for the multi-verse here is one scientist's view of that:


Another -


So what is it, I know and I am not a scientist. I know, the limit of knowledge as human behavior in this everyday world and I can spot both when someone claims knowledge using the word "science" or the word "God".

Here is a proponent of the multi-verse.


Note the highlight. That comes down to an emotion, wasteful and aesthetics, inelegant. His whole argument rests in the end on what makes sense to him in his brain; i.e. it is subjective. No different that some theists. They share that the world must be as it makes sense to them individually and subjectively. BTW the quote from Max Tegmark is a case of fine tuning. He fine tunes the math and then declares that it must be so, because it doesn't make sense to him otherwise.
Some aspects of science are not really science for the everyday world, it is an odd mixture of philosophy and subjectivity.

So what is your answer? Remember I am a global skeptic and I have seen most versions of people confusing objective and subjective. You might have solved it, but I doubt it. The western myth of reason, logic(math) and evidence is that, a myth. It's actual falsification is of the theory of everything is that I can believe differently. So can everybody else. Everything includes subjectivity, but is not just subjective.

So:


So here is a question: Can there be one law or combination of laws, which universally hold for all instances for all of the natural world and not just the physical parts?
And I just answer: No! That is the falsification of the psychology of some humans, whether they use science or religion. They believe in the same regularity, an universal one, which holds of all cases, thus it amounts to always a positive outcome even if only for all humans in the in the end moral sense and I just answer with the negative: No!

Now you are off The Baha'i Faith, so you want good for humans. Well, in practice that amounts to a combination of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. And no matter how nice you do it, I don't fall for the Laws of Nature always ending up with a positive outcome. I am a skeptic, so the negative is my line of work.

Extremely well stated

 

[stvdv]

Of course there is.. the internal 'wiring" the poster mentioned. It is personal and subjective, but it is evidence. Why would you demand that people deny their internal evidence, just because you don't believe in it?

That is a very healthy point. Happy to read that. I have my "Internal Evidence" also. I am inspired by my Guru (Master/Teacher), and others are inspired by their Guru. It's important to trust our own experiences. Like you said it is personal and subjective, but it is at least our own personal evidence and truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is a very healthy point. Happy to read that. I have my "Internal Evidence" also. I am inspired by my Guru (Master/Teacher), and others are inspired by their Guru. It's important to trust our own experiences. Like you said it is personal and subjective, but it is at least our own personal evidence and truth.

As long as you accept other different subjective experiences, you will get no beef from me. On the other hand if you claim it is so for all humans as it is for you, I "bite". And I do it regardless of science or religion.

 

[Polymath257]

As long as you accept other different subjective experiences, you will get no beef from me. On the other hand if you claim it is so for all humans as it is for you, I "bite". And I do it regardless of science or religion.

It is quite clear that people have different subjective experiences. For example, color blind people may not be able to distinguish between red and green. That is a different subjective experience of color than what I have.

But the question is whether there is a reality that underlies all these subjective experiences and how we can learn about that reality. So, in the case of a color blind person, how can they learn that red and green are actually there and different colors?

The history of color blindness actually shows how this is possible. Dalton (the originator of the modern atomic theory) was color blind and noticed that other people *consistently* gave color descriptions distinguishing items he saw as the same. he knew these people to be honest, but also the consistency showed that it wasn't just a random variance, but an aspect that is part of 'consensus reality'. So, Dalton knew that the 'flaw' was in his own visual system.

Now, for mystical experiences, while there are *some* similarities, there is hardly actual consistency. This could lead a reasonable person to believe it isn't an actual phenomenon that is being observed but rather is an idiosyncratic personality difference. In other words, not 'reality', but instead an 'illusion'.

 

[Thief]

No need to. If he had to, God would not be God.

I credit God as able to bestow freewill

He turned Man loose upon this planet.....
go forth, be fruitful, multiply,....dominate all things
male and female
no names
no garden
no law
that would be Day Six

and of course Man would over run the planet and it's resources
loooong before any spirit could survive the last breath

so......Chapter Two
NOT a retelling of Chapter One

a science experiment to alter the mind and body of Man

and a test to make sure the alteration took hold

it did

release into the environment

and here we are

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is quite clear that people have different subjective experiences. For example, color blind people may not be able to distinguish between red and green. That is a different subjective experience of color than what I have.

But the question is whether there is a reality that underlies all these subjective experiences and how we can learn about that reality. So, in the case of a color blind person, how can they learn that red and green are actually there and different colors?

The history of color blindness actually shows how this is possible. Dalton (the originator of the modern atomic theory) was color blind and noticed that other people *consistently* gave color descriptions distinguishing items he saw as the same. he knew these people to be honest, but also the consistency showed that it wasn't just a random variance, but an aspect that is part of 'consensus reality'. So, Dalton knew that the 'flaw' was in his own visual system.

Now, for mystical experiences, while there are *some* similarities, there is hardly actual consistency. This could lead a reasonable person to believe it isn't an actual phenomenon that is being observed but rather is an idiosyncratic personality difference. In other words, not 'reality', but instead an 'illusion'.

No, there is no single reality. I just have to answer No! and your reductionism falls apart.
It is the "hex" of the English language. Realities are an interconnect set of processes in time, space and in some respects, which can't be reduced down an uniform universal set of positive in some respects.
So for:

In other words, not 'reality', but instead an 'illusion'.

You can't speak of an illusion unless it is a part of reality. That is absurd. So in effect you use a duality of unreal and real, yet you speak of the unreal, as if it is somehow real.
BTW Reality is a concept and not a percept, but some people treat it is if it can be reduced to a percept. The reality independent of the mind. That is a "hex" in philosophy. The same with the word "rational". That is from the old Greeks. That reason and logic is better that feelings and emotions. The problem is that better is a variant of an emotion.

 

[Polymath257]

No, there is no single reality. I just have to answer No! and your reductionism falls apart.
It is the "hex" of the English language. Realities are an interconnect set of processes in time, space and in some respects, which can't be reduced down an uniform universal set of positive in some respects.
So for:

You can't speak of an illusion unless it is a part of reality. That is absurd. So in effect you use a duality of unreal and real, yet you speak of the unreal, as if it is somehow real.
BTW Reality is a concept and not a percept, but some people treat it is if it can be reduced to a percept. The reality independent of the mind. That is a "hex" in philosophy. The same with the word "rational". That is from the old Greeks. That reason and logic is better that feelings and emotions. The problem is that better is a variant of an emotion.

Then let me ask whether the color blind person is correct when they report red and green to be the same. Or, is the person who is not color blind more correct?

 

[Audie]

Then let me ask whether the color blind person is correct when they report red and green to be the same. Or, is the person who is not color blind more correct?

Correctness,and incorrectness have an intertwined
relationship that cannot be fully disentangled;
nevetheless, kinetic and perceptual reality
are experiences of a different order.

 

[stvdv]

As long as you accept other different subjective experiences, you will get no beef from me. On the other hand if you claim it is so for all humans as it is for you, I "bite". And I do it regardless of science or religion.

Ditto

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then let me ask whether the color blind person is correct when they report red and green to be the same. Or, is the person who is not color blind more correct?

And here we go. You use correct as if it always have an objective referent. It doesn't. So some forms of correct are subjective and can only be made inter-subjective upon agreement.
Now an often used example is that if somebody jumps out from a high enough height and hit a solid enough surface he/she dies and that is so for all humans. I accept that as objectively correct.
But some forms of correct are subjective and can't be turn into objectively correct.
Test:
Someone: All forms of correct are objective!
Me: No!
Some theists: Now you are evil and go to Hell.
Some non-religious humans: You can't defy the objective laws of all of reality.
Me: To both parties. I don't care about your subjective worldviews, because I have a different one.

I have figure out that some on both sides of the divide use the same appeal to emotions. If you don't do as I tell you, it ends bad.
Me: No, apparently not for the subjective parts of reality.

So that was something about the word "correct". Now was I correct?

 

[stvdv]

As long as you accept other different subjective experiences, you will get no beef from me. On the other hand if you claim it is so for all humans as it is for you, I "bite".

I would even say:
"You can stick to your own experiences. Your path will lead you to your goal. You don't need my path, mine is not any better than yours"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would even say:
"You can stick to your own experiences. Your path will lead you to your goal. You don't need my path, mine is not any better than yours"

I was homeless on the Internet, until I found you as a group. It also helped that I turned religious. It helps me achieve peace of mind, at least sometimes.

 

[stvdv]

Then let me ask whether the color blind person is correct when they report red and green to be the same. Or, is the person who is not color blind more correct?

The perfect example with colors and prisma ... it's not about more or less correct

I like the little "Rainbow Parable (in spoiler below) in this context: Guru asks disciple what color they see in a raindrop. All 7 disciples see different colors. They even start fighting who sees correct color. Then the Guru has them change position.

Spoiler: Rainbow Parable:

Multicolor:
A teacher once went on a morning walk with seven students, while the dew was still over the land. After a while the sun broke through. The dewdrops sparkled that was a sweet delight.

The teacher stopped at a large dew drop. He gathered the students around the drop so that the sun kept shining on it and then asked:
"What color is the drop?"
"Red," said the first.
"Orange", the second.
"Yellow", the third.
"Blue," the fourth.
'Green', the fifth.
"Purple", the sixth.
And the seventh said "violet."

They were surprised at the differences. Because they were sure they saw it right, they almost got into a fight.

Then the teacher had them swap places a few times and they always saw a different color. And very slowly it dawned on the students that despite the differences in their perceptions, they had all spoken the truth.

And the teacher said: "How you see the truth depends on the place you take in life. Just as you have just found a part of the light and saw that for the full truth. Let your fellow pilgrims walk in complete freedom their own way of life, take their own place and perceive their own part of the light. You need each other's truths, for all together they form the real light, the full truth.

Until you have become one of the great ones and can perceive the seven colors in one, you will be able to learn something with every 'discovery', with every 'rebirth' and with major changes in your life you will take a different view and see the truth in a different way.

Therefore, do not just be tolerant - because that is only tolerating a different opinion - but even be happy that there are other opinions.

As long as you cannot see yourself in full light, you need fellow people to get to know the full truth.

 

[Darkforbid]

I was homeless on the Internet, until I found you as a group. It also helped that I turned religious. It helps me achieve peace of mind, at least sometimes.

How did you rough sleep on the Internet inquiring minds wish to know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How did you rough sleep on the Internet inquiring minds wish to know?

Funny I spent me time with the "folks" of New Atheism and that ain't nice. It is a lot of hate and what not.

 

[leov]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

Proof of God in Five Minutes | Gerald Schroeder