Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As if life could arise in a universe consisting of only space and hydrogen, for example.

It did, you moron. That literally describes the state of our universe at one time in the past. Haha....idiot....

 

[Hollie]

So apparently Hollie believes that no matter how the universe is tuned life would not only exist but would adapt. Brilliant.

As if life could arise in a universe consisting of only space and hydrogen, for example.

These rubes are prattling nonsense when all the while they fail to grasp the fact that all Craig is arguing is that if our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle is powerful. Otherwise, the weak anthropic principle holds; that is to say, the fine tuning of our universe would be relatively unremarkable because it would be just one universe in a continuum of discrete, albeit, similar universes within the narrow range of habitability scattered among a potentially infinite number of uninhabitable universes. Hollie doesn't grasp the actuality of the fine-tuned problem, that it must be resolved; she doesn't grasp the ramifications of the anthropic principle in toto and the actual context of the fine-tuned argument proper because she's still not reading our posts. The theists on this thread are exposing the shenanigans and ignorance of atheist hacks, but the rubes will not be taught because they're closed-minded, intellectual bigots. They will not hear us.

In the meantime, we theists, you and I, wholly agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists on the matter--most of whom are atheists or agnostics! We're only trying to lace them up on the science, not making any arguments for God's existence as such at all really.

By the way, for some reason I alluded to the work of Harnik et. al and that of Aguirre et. al in the above as Harnik and Adams. Brainfart. Something was nagging at me so I looked in the file I keep on these things:
REWINDING THE LAWS OF TIME AND SPACE / We're not alone -- thousands of other universes may exist
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/8649100_Anthony_Aguirre

I confused Aguirre with Fred Adams who makes a different argument. More on him later.

William Lane Craig is pompous. He's Jimmy Swaggert with his pants on. Your false claims regarding scientists as "Beliebers" was refuted with verifiable data.

It's just coincidence that all of the basic chemical elements that occur naturally in our known universe, all the building blocks of life that define biological diversity on the planet is just coincidence?

You need to duct tape your bibles into a double-wide and do some thumping elsewhere.

 

[Ringtone]

Carroll is mistating the fine-tuned problem of the universe. Once again, it's not about what life can exist. It's about what kind of universe can exist to support life in the first place! He knows better, and he knows damn well that he's misleading the audience to win an argument as he conflates the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence.

Nonsense. The vast majority of scientists do not hold that the universe is “finely tuned”.

This is, as usual, another of your specious, unsupported claims. Your statement may be referring to charlatans at the various creation ministries or perhaps at Harun Yahya, but it’s obvious that scientists working in the relevant fields of science do not hold the religious view you want to impose on them.

Dr. Luke A. Barnes of the Institute for Astronomy (Zurich, Switzerland) and the Sydney Institute for Astronomy: School of Physics (University of Sydney, Australia) calmly responds:

Let’s be clear on the task that Stenger has set for himself. There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact ( https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf ).
​

 

[Ringtone]

William Lane Craig is pompous. He's Jimmy Swaggert with his pants on. Your false claims regarding scientists as "Beliebers" was refuted with verifiable data.

It's just coincidence that all of the basic chemical elements that occur naturally in our known universe, all the building blocks of life that define biological diversity on the planet is just coincidence?

You need to duct tape your bibles into a double-wide and do some thumping elsewhere.

Who are you arguing with, Hollie? The spiders on the wall?

 

[rightwinger]

tl; dr

Video triggered OP. This thread is therapeutic reaffirmation...

Thank you for underscoring the other point of the OP, namely, the rank ignorance of the typical new atheist rube of the state schools and popular culture regarding the pertinent science.

In order to objectively evaluate the matter, one should have a competent grasp of the following:

1. The elemental and structural chemistry of stellar nucleosynthesis.
2. The significance of the stellar nucleosynthesis of carbon-12 via the triple-alpha-process.
3. The basics of baryogenesis, including baryonic asymmetry.
4. The four fundamental interactions (or forces) of nature: gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear, and the weak nuclear. They do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. The gravitational and electromagnetic interactions produce significant, long-range forces, the effects of which can be directly observed at the classic level. The strong and weak interactions produce forces of miniscule distances at the subatomic level and govern nuclear interactions. The fundamental interactions can be described mathematically as a field. The gravitational force is attributed to the curvature of spacetime, and the other three are discrete quantum fields mediated by elementary particles.

Though not immediately relevant, awareness of the distinction between fermions (mass carries/composite particles) and bosons (force carries/wave particles) and the key constituents of their taxon are helpful:

Fermions
1. Quarks
2. Hadrons: mesons and baryons.

Mesons: the hadronic, subatomic particles intermediate in mass between electrons and nucleons composed of one quark and one antiquark, and participate in the weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions.

The Components of Atomic Structure
1. The hadronic, three-quark baryons (or nucleons): protons and neutrons.
2. Leptons: electrons (electron-neutrinos, muons, muon-neutrinos, tau and tau-neutrinos) and positrons (five corresponding antimatter electrons).

Bosons
1. Photons: the force carriers (exchange particles) of the the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field is comprised of the electric and magnetic forces. Fundamentally, the electric and magnetic forces are manifestations of an exchange force effectuated by the exchange of photons. Hence, the electromagnetic force (electromagnetism) manifests through the electromagnetic field, and holds atoms and molecules together.
2. W bosons and Z bosons: the force carriers (exchange particles) of the weak nuclear force which act on atomic nuclei, mediating radioactive decay.
3. Gluons: the force carriers (exchange particles) that mediate the underlying strong force (or interaction) between quarks (the "glue" that holds the hadronic particles protons and neutrons together).
4. Gravitons: the hypothetical quantum of gravity (or the elementary particles that mediate the force of gravity).

Note that the smallest, fundamental particles of matter are quarks and leptons (or electrons), while bosons are the fundamental particles that carry forces between fundamental particles of matter. Bear in mind, as described by general relativity, gravity is not a force as such, but a consequence of the curvature of spacetime affected by varying distributions of mass. Also note that the strong force (or interaction) transpires at two scales and is mediated by two force carriers. At the larger scale, it is the force that binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together to form the nucleus of an atom, and the force is primarily carried by virtual pions, a type of meson. At the smaller scale, it is the force that holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons (nucleons), and the forced is carried by gluons. Hence, the strong force holds most ordinary matter at the subatomic level together. In the context of atomic nuclei, the strong interaction is also called the strong nuclear force proper (or residual strong force), as the residuum from the strong interaction within protons and neutrons also binds atomic nuclei together per their respective force carriers (exchange particles).

Any competent review of the scientifically fine-tuned argument would necessarily entail the following:

1. The necessity of astronomical structures, systems and elemental diversity.
2. The significance of the fundamental laws of nature, the constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe.
3. The essence of the Fine-Tuning Problem (FTP).
4. The essence of the anthropic principle in general.
5. The essence of the weak anthropic principle (WAP) and that of the strong anthropic principle (SAP).
6. The WAP and the SAP's interpretations of the FTP.
7. The essence of the multiverse cosmological model.
8. The actual essence and application of the Fine-Tuning Argument for God's Existence, which is not to be confused with the FTP!
9. The essence of the logic and the potentially falsifying methodology of the counterview regarding the verity of the FTP and the anthropic principle.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't recall GMS discussing any of the above in his video, much less mention anything about the immediately pertinent chemistry.

tl;dr


TOO LONG, DIDN’T READ

 

[Ringtone]

TOO LONG, DIDN’T READ

Short attention span, eh?

 

[Hollie]

Carroll is mistating the fine-tuned problem of the universe. Once again, it's not about what life can exist. It's about what kind of universe can exist to support life in the first place! He knows better, and he knows damn well that he's misleading the audience to win an argument as he conflates the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence.

Nonsense. The vast majority of scientists do not hold that the universe is “finely tuned”.

This is, as usual, another of your specious, unsupported claims. Your statement may be referring to charlatans at the various creation ministries or perhaps at Harun Yahya, but it’s obvious that scientists working in the relevant fields of science do not hold the religious view you want to impose on them.

Dr. Luke A. Barnes of the Institute for Astronomy (Zurich, Switzerland) and the Sydney Institute for Astronomy: School of Physics (University of Sydney, Australia) calmly responds:

Let’s be clear on the task that Stenger has set for himself. There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact ( https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf ).
​

You’re rather flustered.

Let’s be clear,


Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from a new Pew Research Center study. This includes one-third of all Americans (33%) who say that humans evolved due to processes like natural selection with no involvement by God or a higher power, along with 48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans have always existed in their present form. (See the full report for a deeper look at the ways question wording and format can affect survey results on evolution.)

And




Scientists and Belief

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

 

[Hollie]

William Lane Craig is pompous. He's Jimmy Swaggert with his pants on. Your false claims regarding scientists as "Beliebers" was refuted with verifiable data.

It's just coincidence that all of the basic chemical elements that occur naturally in our known universe, all the building blocks of life that define biological diversity on the planet is just coincidence?

You need to duct tape your bibles into a double-wide and do some thumping elsewhere.

Who are you arguing with, Hollie? The spiders on the wall?

I’m just debunking your false claims. It’s rather a simple matter to present the facts that counter your nonsense,

 

[jillian]

You know, there has been multiple posts about why atheists would care to constantly write about theism. But that is a two way street. Here we are again with a thread to attack atheists. I guarantee it will eventually come down to atheists being accused of attacking theists. The hypocrisy in this is incredible.

I have a better idea. I think theocrats should leave everyone else alone

 

[jillian]

Carroll is mistating the fine-tuned problem of the universe. Once again, it's not about what life can exist. It's about what kind of universe can exist to support life in the first place! He knows better, and he knows damn well that he's misleading the audience to win an argument as he conflates the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence.

Nonsense. The vast majority of scientists do not hold that the universe is “finely tuned”.

This is, as usual, another of your specious, unsupported claims. Your statement may be referring to charlatans at the various creation ministries or perhaps at Harun Yahya, but it’s obvious that scientists working in the relevant fields of science do not hold the religious view you want to impose on them.

Dr. Luke A. Barnes of the Institute for Astronomy (Zurich, Switzerland) and the Sydney Institute for Astronomy: School of Physics (University of Sydney, Australia) calmly responds:

Let’s be clear on the task that Stenger has set for himself. There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact ( https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf ).
​

You’re rather flustered.

Let’s be clear,


Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from a new Pew Research Center study. This includes one-third of all Americans (33%) who say that humans evolved due to processes like natural selection with no involvement by God or a higher power, along with 48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans have always existed in their present form. (See the full report for a deeper look at the ways question wording and format can affect survey results on evolution.)

And




Scientists and Belief

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Theocrats hate science

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Scientists and Belief

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

I wouldn't put all my stock in what scientists believe. Over time they have believed in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body.

Scientists are a self selecting group putting much faith, if you'll forgive the word, in what they can see, touch and know about the world all around them, which is all well and good.

But what we know about the universe and the natural world is limited. Greatly limited. So therefore what the scientist believes in is also limited. I am encouraged that science is starting to branch out into fields that were once considered silly or taboo. Why We Need to Study Consciousness

Once scientists start to believe in larger numbers that not everything we should know comes from textbooks
and wall charts I am confident more scientists will follow the lead of Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Michio Kaku
who saw there are common threads that intertwine all throughout the cosmos, most of which we have yet to discover,
and the inescapable conclusion is there is a guiding consciousness to it all.
Some people will chafe at the thought but knowledge is good for us all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I wouldn't put all my stock in what scientists believe.

* when what they believe doesn't align with your superstitions or politics

Let's be honest, here.

 

[Hollie]

Scientists and Belief

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

I wouldn't put all my stock in what scientists believe. Over time they have believed in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body.

Scientists are a self selecting group putting much faith, if you'll forgive the word, in what they can see, touch and know about the world all around them, which is all well and good.

But what we know about the universe and the natural world is limited. Greatly limited. So therefore what the scientist believes in is also limited. I am encouraged that science is starting to branch out into fields that were once considered silly or taboo. Why We Need to Study Consciousness

Once scientists start to believe in larger numbers that not everything we should know comes from textbooks
and wall charts I am confident more scientists will follow the lead of Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Michio Kaku
who saw there are common threads that intertwine all throughout the cosmos, most of which we have yet to discover,
and the inescapable conclusion is there is a guiding consciousness to it all.
Some people will chafe at the thought but knowledge is good for us all.

There is no inescapable conclusion of gods. I suspect your use of the term “guiding consciousness” is a way to side-step around a simple admission that you’re referring to the gods.

Let’s also understand that belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body were policies mandated by the European church for 800 years. Dissent from that “belief” was the cause of some of the best minds of the time being squashed by religious doctrine.

The Church literally held back the advance of western civilization for nearly 1,000 years.

Here are a couple thoughts. If you want to understand how the math of gravity, time and distance relate in order to reach another planet, you could ask a priest, or, you could ask scientists at Lockheed-Martin.

If you need a cure for a bacterial infection, you consult with a church Deacon, or, you could consult a trained doctor. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar eclipse in the next 100 years you could ask a church pastor, or, you could ask an astronomer.

 

[Ringtone]

I wouldn't put all my stock in what scientists believe. Over time they have believed in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body.

Scientists are a self selecting group putting much faith, if you'll forgive the word, in what they can see, touch and know about the world all around them, which is all well and good.

But what we know about the universe and the natural world is limited. Greatly limited. So therefore what the scientist believes in is also limited. I am encouraged that science is starting to branch out into fields that were once considered silly or taboo. Why We Need to Study Consciousness

Once scientists start to believe in larger numbers that not everything we should know comes from textbooks
and wall charts I am confident more scientists will follow the lead of Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Michio Kaku
who saw there are common threads that intertwine all throughout the cosmos, most of which we have yet to discover,
and the inescapable conclusion is there is a guiding consciousness to it all.
Some people will chafe at the thought but knowledge is good for us all.

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and I are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There is no inescapable conclusion of gods. I suspect your use of the term “guiding consciousness” is a way to side-step around a simple admission that you’re referring to the gods.

I'm referring what these great thinkers and scientific minds were referring to:
A conclusion that the vast universe is run by an all encompassing
orderly system of rules, laws and amazing scientific principles that we know only to a very paltry degree at this point.
For instance we don't know what time is or why gravity works, or what dark matter is.

I purposely did not use the G word for fear of triggering people. You can use whatever word you like that describes a supreme being that exist outside of time and space and has given order to the cosmos.

Let’s also understand that belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body were policies mandated by the European church for 800 years.

No they weren't. These were the views of the best scientific minds of the day. As science slowly disproved these dogmas
the church also slowly began rescinding edicts that called Galileo a heretic, for instance.
But science and the church were frequently of one mind.

Dissent from that “belief” was the cause of some of the best minds of the time being squashed by religious doctrine.

The Church literally held back the advance of western civilization for nearly 1,000 years.

I think that goes too far
and the point is moot anyway.

Here are a couple thoughts. If you want to understand how the math of gravity, time and distance relate in order to reach another planet, you could ask a priest, or, you could ask scientists at Lockheed-Martin.

If you need a cure for a bacterial infection, you consult with a church Deacon, or, you could consult a trained doctor. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar eclipse in the next 100 years you could ask a church pastor, or, you could ask an astronomer.

That's all moot also. No one is asking a priest to get us to other habitable planets.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For instance we don't know what time is or why gravity works, or what dark matter is.

EAB 500 years ago:

We dont know what gold is. Or what causes illness. Or why the seasons change.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and are are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

And I agree with you. Some are vile and insulting off the bat and some are cordial and friendly until they begin to realize that their anti God rhetorical tricks aren't working but in the end, they all wind up pretty bitter and hostile.

They have a belief in nothing, which they will tell you is not true yet they cannot explain the presence of the universe itself
(It just is....I don't know...it's always been here....etc.). I know it's not God, they all say
not explaining how they know that either.

As I always say the idea of God is absurd, until you consider the alternative (a universe that just happens to exist, like a Sears Craftsman tool chest that just happens to sit on the back side of Mars). The bicycle is proof of the bicycle maker. The universe is proof of it's maker.

 

[diver52]

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and are are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

And I agree with you. Some are vile and insulting off the bat and some are cordial and friendly until they begin to realize that their anti God rhetorical tricks aren't working but in the end, they all wind up pretty bitter and hostile.

They have a belief in nothing, which they will tell you is not true yet they cannot explain the presence of the universe itself
(It just is....I don't know...it's always been here....etc.). I know it's not God, they all say
not explaining how they know that either.

As I always say the idea of God is absurd, until you consider the alternative (a universe that just happens to exist, like a Sears Craftsman tool chest that just happens to sit on the back side of Mars). The bicycle is proof of the bicycle maker. The universe is proof of it's maker.

It has been my experience that the response you describe works on both sides of the issue. Many people just don't like having their beliefs questioned. The only real response to the question of the beginning of the universe is a simple "I don't know". Any claim of knowledge on either side is nothing more than a wish. You are all making up the answer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many people just don't like having their beliefs questioned.

And then you have scientists and other evidence-based thinkers, who invite all questioning of their determinations.

 

[Ringtone]

There is no inescapable conclusion of gods. I suspect your use of the term “guiding consciousness” is a way to side-step around a simple admission that you’re referring to the gods.

I'm referring what these great thinkers and scientific minds were referring to:
A conclusion that the vast universe is run by an all encompassing
orderly system of rules, laws and amazing scientific principles that we know only to a very paltry degree at this point.
For instance we don't know what time is or why gravity works, or what dark matter is.

I purposely did not use the G word for fear of triggering people. You can use whatever word you like that describes a supreme being that exist outside of time and space and has given order to the cosmos.

Let’s also understand that belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body were policies mandated by the European church for 800 years.

No they weren't. These were the views of the best scientific minds of the day. As science slowly disproved these dogmas
the church also slowly began rescinding edicts that called Galileo a heretic, for instance.
But science and the church were frequently of one mind.

Dissent from that “belief” was the cause of some of the best minds of the time being squashed by religious doctrine.

The Church literally held back the advance of western civilization for nearly 1,000 years.

I think that goes too far
and the point is moot anyway.

Here are a couple thoughts. If you want to understand how the math of gravity, time and distance relate in order to reach another planet, you could ask a priest, or, you could ask scientists at Lockheed-Martin.

If you need a cure for a bacterial infection, you consult with a church Deacon, or, you could consult a trained doctor. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar eclipse in the next 100 years you could ask a church pastor, or, you could ask an astronomer.

That's all moot also. No one is asking a priest to get us to other habitable planets.

Indeed! Trust me, Blair. ding and I follow all of the above because we read; we understand the science and the scientists. The atheists on this thread stupidly think that the thrust of this OP is to advance the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, that is, when they're not stupidly confounding the fine-tuned argument from the cosmology of the strong anthropic principle with the strictly teleological argument from design. The OP is about the proper understanding of the fine-tuned problem, the anthropic principle and the fine-tuned argument. Nothing else! With virtually every post, the atheists on this thread unwittingly demonstrate that they're not reading or comprehending the issue at all. They're just spouting slogans. In short, they're unwittingly underscoring the very point being made by the OP regarding the widespread scientific ignorance and zombie-think among the rubes of new atheism on the Internet.