Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[Meriweather]

You have a dad, though? Or had? I'd feel it a little disrespectful to my own dad to divide my love between two fathers.

My dad was more than just my dad. God is more than just Father. Knowing something of both is not disrespectful to either.

 

[john54]

Again, you are jumping to conclusions. I have already had that sense of awe...and then I went deeper. Ding explains it much better than I. Since you asked that question, I am guessing you have formed the conclusion I know nothing about evolution. I often teach evolution. Get up to speed.

Yes, I understand you're also a concordist Christian (a Christian who doesn't find discordance between the Bible and science). I dated (and debated) a literalist so it's interesting to hear both views. Like I told ding, I find both views admirable in different ways, and both to be fundamentally logically flawed.

Correct.

So did you only believe Santa was real, or did you know it? For me, I knew it, with absolutely certainty. It wasn't about belief at all, I had seen and heard what I considered irrefutable evidence, I'd even felt him, like a presence, and I knew he was real. Aren't you concerned that you can know an entity to be real and still be incorrect?

It is an exploration not only of what is physical, but the energy and curiosity to go further. Remember when I said you were a settler, not a pioneer or an explorer? Some are satisfied with what the physical reveals. Some go beyond and explore what the spiritual realm reveals.

Who says I'm not interested in going beyond what's physical? There's too much science doesn't understand about the brain and body and their workings, so much to explore, beyond even just philosophy. There are subtleties of being a living, conscious being that you'll never pick up on just through study of science. You have to experience them for yourself. Personally, I've found eastern teachings like Taoist and buddhist to be insightful. I'm intensely skeptical of any claims of reincarnation, but as both a philosophy and mind-body-artform these have proven positive effects. They could be looked at as going beyond the physical, though I don't expect anything supernatural is happening when one meditates or anything like that.

 

[ding]

You're just assuming that there weren't innumerable other universes that failed to produce the laws ours have, which allow atomic nuclei to stabilize and electrons to orbit them and in which gravity isn't too strong or too weak etc. If there are other universes, which is one theory based on substantial actual evidence and scientific theory, your argument collapses.

No. I'm not. If you alter the structure of matter even slightly, universes could still be created in the exact same way but would contain no life. It's not my idea. It's been known a long time.

 

[john54]

No. I'm not. If you alter the structure of matter even slightly, universes could still be created in the exact same way but would contain no life. It's not my idea. It's been known a long time.

That's not an absolute certainty that this is the only configuration that could allow for life - we don't know what other forms life could take given alternative forms of matter. But let's say this is the one configuration. You haven't addressed the concept I keep bringing up at all - if enough universes formed, containing enough matter, let's say infinite universes or a number beyond imagining, then it is likely that this precise configuration would form and likely that life would too. Can you address and refute that at all?

 

[ding]

We have two variables at play, the auspicious nature of our universe's life-allowing properties, and the auspicious nature of earth's life-conducive environment. So just add this to the pickup sticks analogy:

Let different universes be represented by immense tables

Let different planetary environments within a universe be represented by innumerable
pickup sticks placed on each table

Now, drop all of those innumerable tables with the sticks on them and watch as the vast majority of tables break or knock all the sticks off when they land (just as most universes don't produce laws making life even possible), and then look as many tables, few and far between, but many, did not break or land slanted and so their pickup sticks remained, and among those many tables, some produced sticks landing straight up at that incredibly rare, 90 degree angle (in other words they produced life).

If any of those rare, up-pointed sticks thinks, "How could both my  table have landed in this perfectly flat position, and then on top of that how could I have landed in this perfectly upright position? It must have been intended this way." Then that stick just has survivor's bias. Innumerable tables failed to land flat (failed to produce stable physical laws) and knocked their sticks off, and even among the tables that landed flat, innumerable numbers of them failed to produce upright pickupsticks (failed to produce life).

Does that make sense?

No. It doesn't make sense because it's predicated on an argument that we don't live in an unnatural universe. Which is false. We absolutely do live in an unnatural universe. If you alter the structure of matter even slightly (an infinite number of possibilities), universes could still be created in the exact same way but would contain no life. And I haven't even gotten into the unnatural way our universe was created through nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter instead of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which is how paired particle production works.

A better analogy is a vase on top of a table in a heavily traveled intersection. At the end of the day you would expect to find the vase in exactly the same place or fallen over (lifeless universes). Because either no one bumped the table and the vase was undisturbed or someone bumped the table and the vase fell over. You wouldn't expect to find the vase standing upright perfectly balanced with half the vase on the table and half the vase off of the table (life filled universe). For that to happen it would requires someone placing it there. That's our universe.

 

[john54]

No. It doesn't make sense because it's predicated on an argument that we don't live in an unnatural universe. Which is false. We absolutely do live in an unnatural universe. If you alter the structure of matter even slightly (an infinite number of possibilities), universes could still be created in the exact same way but would contain no life. And I haven't even gotten into the unnatural way our universe was created through nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter instead of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which is how paired particle production works.

A better analogy is a vase on top of a table in a heavily traveled intersection. At the end of the day you would expect to find the vase in exactly the same place or fallen over (lifeless universes). You wouldn't expect to find the vase perfect;y place standing upright perfectly balance with half the vase on the table and half the vase off of the table (life filled universe). For that to happen it would requires someone placing it there. That's our universe.

And have you looked around to see that a googleplex of other vases were set up and most were hit and knocked down? You're still just describing survivor's bias.

I'm not disagreeing that both our universe's and earth's situation are unimaginably unlikely. But your argument that they are unnatural lacks evidence. On the other hand we have growing evidence for multiple universes, and also for an infinite universe, both of which would allow for enough tries-and-misses for some bulls eyes to happen and allow life to exist.

 

[ding]

If the consequences of me knocking a pencil off a table are that it falls to the ground, that would be a result of gravity and other physical laws of our universe. Looking at everything as something happening to you for a divine reason is like walking around blindfolded bumping into things and claiming someone must have put those things in your way so you'd walk into them. It sounds self-focused and like you're just trying to make illogic work...

Incorrect I am explaining to you how implausible our universe is. It's not an accident the structure of matter and the laws of nature are tuned to produce life. It's illogical to dismiss this fact like you are doing.

Your analogy is flawed. The consequence of the structure of matter and the laws of nature being finely tuned to produce life and intelligence is that life and intelligence were produced. Now add on the fact that instead of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter being created through paired particle production - which is what would be expected - our universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter - which is what would not be expected. So I don't see ant other way our life filled, intelligence creating universe could have been created except for an intentional act to produce life and intelligence.

 

[john54]

Incorrect I am explaining to you how implausible our universe is. It's not an accident the structure of matter and the laws of nature are tuned to produce life. It's illogical to dismiss this fact like you are doing.

Your analogy is flawed. The consequence of the structure of matter and the laws of nature being finely tuned to produce life and intelligence is that life and intelligence were produced. Now add on the fact that instead of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter being created through paired particle production - which is what would be expected - our universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter - which is what would not be expected. So I don't see ant other way our life filled, intelligence creating universe could have been created except for an intentional act to produce life and intelligence.

I am not finding that you have addressed my point at all, that given enough universes formed, it's likely one would have both the physical laws and other factors necessary for life to form. Address this and give me a solid answer and I promise you I will find the idea of a God more credible. Avoid it like every other intelligent Christian does and it will just remain the primary logical flaw in theistic reasoning in my mind.

Before we get to the matter-antimatter discrepancy mystery, give me an answer like you're my professor and I'm you're student and I'm really trying to understand.

Yes, it's true universes with these exact laws could have formed and life may have still been unlikely, but whose to say a googleplex or an infinity of universes with these exact laws didn't form, thus, again, making it likely that some out of many would form life?

 

[ding]

That's not an absolute certainty that this is the only configuration that could allow for life - we don't know what other forms life could take given alternative forms of matter.

I think you mean to say you don't know. Because it is an absolute certainty.

What do you believe the effect would be of protons and electrons not being exactly equal and opposite in charge?
What do you believe the effect would be if the distance between the electrons and the nucleus were different?

If you alter the structure of matter even slightly universes could have been created in exactly the same way but would be devoid of life. Do I need to explain why?

 

[john54]

I think you mean to say you don't know. Because it is an absolute certainty.

What do you believe the effect would be of protons and electrons not being exactly equal and opposite in charge?
What do you believe the effect would be if the distance between the electrons and the nucleus were different?

If you alter the structure of matter even slightly universes could have been created in exactly the same way but would be devoid of life. Do I need to explain why?

I understand that: if the speed of light was even slightly higher or lower, if the fundamental forces were just slightly stronger or weaker, atoms wouldn't form and we wouldn't have the universe we have.

We have yet to identify every subatomic particle, or even to identify what stuff is fundamentally made of though - strings are just one theory among many - so who is to say what other configurations of light speeds, particle masses etc might have produced some alternative to atoms? Yes, this is the one configuration for atoms, but we don't have near the information to conclude that atoms are the only stable form of matter, and if other stable forms are possible, other forms of life, made of matter unknown to us, may be too.

But again, let's say atoms are the only possible stable configuration of matter, thus requiring our exact infitesimally unlikely physical laws. In that case, Answer my question here, please: given enough universes, wouldn't even the most unlikely be probable to form? And if enough with our exact laws formed, wouldn't it be likely that the factors for life would arise in some of those many, many universes just like ours?

 

[ding]

But let's say this is the one configuration. You haven't addressed the concept I keep bringing up at all - if enough universes formed, containing enough matter, let's say infinite universes or a number beyond imagining, then it is likely that this precise configuration would form and likely that life would too. Can you address and refute that at all?

Yes I can address that. Our universe was created in an unnatural way with NEARLY equal amounts of matter and anti-matter instead of equal equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which is natural for paired particle production. So in your analogy it would require an infinite number of universes being created unnaturally. Which would effectively mean that what we know is unnatural - unequal paired production of particles - is actually be natural. Which we know it's not.
You are shooting from the hip. You don't know the science behind the big bang.

 

[ding]

And have you looked around to see that a googleplex of other vases were set up and most were hit and knocked down? You're still just describing survivor's bias.

No. I'm not. You don't know the first thing about the science of the big bang.

We live in a universe which was created in an unnatural way that is so finely tuned to produce life and intelligence that if you slightly alter the structure of matter, life and intelligence would be impossible. These are facts.

 

[john54]

Yes I can address that. Our universe was created in an unnatural way with NEARLY equal amounts of matter and anti-matter instead of equal equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which is natural for paired particle production. So in your analogy it would require an infinite number of universes being created unnaturally. Which would effectively mean that what we know is unnatural - unequal paired production of particles - is actually be natural. Which we know it's not.
You are shooting from the hip. You don't know the science behind the big bang.

Aren't you shooting at the hip and assuming this latest "gap" in science has no scientific answer? So the Standard Model can not account for the extra matter. There are plenty of theories, just like there have been for past concepts that didn't yet have an explanation and now do. What happens when they find the explanation for this one?

Each major breakthrough in scientific history wound up explaining what had seemed unnatural, since newton's belief that gravity was god actively holding the planets together to now.

 

[ding]

I'm not disagreeing that both our universe's and earth's situation are unimaginably unlikely. But your argument that they are unnatural lacks evidence. On the other hand we have growing evidence for multiple universes, and also for an infinite universe, both of which would allow for enough tries-and-misses for some bulls eyes to happen and allow life to exist.

Everything I am telling you is based upon scientific evidence. So, no. My argument - that we live in a universe that was created unnaturally and is so finely tuned that if the structure of matter is even slightly altered life and intelligence would be impossible - is based upon scientific evidence.

I would be happy to discuss multi-verses with you because if they were created through paired particle production with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter - which is the natural way paired particles production works - they would be filled with radiation only.

What scientific evidence do I need to explain to you for you to believe our universe was created unnaturally?

What scientific evidence do I need to explain to you for you to believe that our universe is so finely tuned to produce life that if you slightly alter the structure of matter that life and intelligence would be impossible?

 

[ding]

I am not finding that you have addressed my point at all, that given enough universes formed, it's likely one would have both the physical laws and other factors necessary for life to form. Address this and give me a solid answer and I promise you I will find the idea of a God more credible. Avoid it like every other intelligent Christian does and it will just remain the primary logical flaw in theistic reasoning in my mind.

I have addressed it. Multiple times. I have been very clear and consistent. Why don't you play back my answer so I can see what you have missed?

 

[ding]

Before we get to the matter-antimatter discrepancy mystery, give me an answer like you're my professor and I'm you're student and I'm really trying to understand.

That's exactly what I have been doing. Here's a link to the science behind the big bang. Let me know if you have any questions.

The Early Universe

 

[john54]

Everything I am telling you is based upon scientific evidence. So, no. My argument - that we live in a universe that was created unnaturally and is so finely tuned that if the structure of matter is even slightly altered life and intelligence would be impossible - is based upon scientific evidence.

I would be happy to discuss multi-verses with you because if they were created through paired particle production with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter - which is the natural way paired particles production works - they would be filled with radiation only.

What scientific evidence do I need to explain to you for you to believe our universe was created unnaturally?

What scientific evidence do I need to explain to you for you to believe that our universe is so finely tuned to produce life that if you slightly alter the structure of matter that life and intelligence would be impossible?

I think it's important to address those two points separately.

Your second argument, that the universe is finely tuned for life, which everything ive read supports, could simply have come about out of likelihood given enough universes. Do you agree?

Your second argument, that it is unnatural, is your belief given that the matter-antimatter discrepancy has not been explained by science yet. My question here is why do you expect we won't answer this question with science like we did past questions that seemed unnatural?

 

[ding]

Yes, it's true universes with these exact laws could have formed and life may have still been unlikely, but whose to say a googleplex or an infinity of universes with these exact laws didn't form, thus, again, making it likely that some out of many would form life?

Not unless they were intentionally created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

 

[ding]

I understand that: if the speed of light was even slightly higher or lower, if the fundamental forces were just slightly stronger or weaker, atoms wouldn't form and we wouldn't have the universe we have.

If you understand how each of those changes would result in a different universe, then can you explain what the effect on our universe would be for each of those changes?

Because I don't believe you do understand the effects those changes would have on our universe and I don't believe you should be making those statements if you don't understand what those effects should be.

I think you are shooting from your hip again.

 

[ding]

We have yet to identify every subatomic particle, or even to identify what stuff is fundamentally made of though - strings are just one theory among many - so who is to say what other configurations of light speeds, particle masses etc might have produced some alternative to atoms? Yes, this is the one configuration for atoms, but we don't have near the information to conclude that atoms are the only stable form of matter, and if other stable forms are possible, other forms of life, made of matter unknown to us, may be too.

It's a pretty weak argument to claim we can't know anything unless we know everything. We know a great deal about the creation of the universe from nothing.

We know that our universe literally popped into existence being created in an unnatural way and is finely tuned to produce life and intelligence. Those are the facts.