"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:sBFhh.26267$B42.4330@newsfe12.phx...
Dan Wood wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2LTgh.24693$B42.17075@newsfe12.phx...
Dan Wood wrote:
[snip][snip].
That's not what Confirmation Bias is. Take a quick pit stop
here, and examine what it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
This article states that one must have a preconceived idea,
also activity seek out confirming evidence. If you had read
the above statement you would have seen where I stated
that I was skeptical. And that I gave little thought to
religion. I had a good life and I didn't see how theism
or atheism, either case would affected my life.
Then why did you keep ADDING a god?
[snip]
_Indirect_ evidence which points to a intelligent designer!
If you read past the top description and get into the
examples, you'll yourself a classic.
I read the entire article. I doubt anyone is totally immune to
biases.
I agree.
Scientist are suppose to be, but each has his own pet theory
which he will defend to the end.
No! The true scientist doesn't defend his theories. He
honestly with all his knowledge tries to DISPROVE his own
theories! In the quest for truth, it's the most efficient
method for discovering the truth.
Not true, a theory will remain until it is replaced by a theory
which better fits and better explains the evidence on hand .
Is this why Max Planck remarked that no theory is compeletely
abondoned until it's proponents are dead?
Witness the "steady state"
hypothesis. It was defended by Hoyle and others until Wilson
and Penzias made their discovery after which it was no longer
credible. This is to say nothing about "spontaneous generation".
You see, since there is no evidence of a god, you could
never come to that conclusion unless a god (as an
explanation) was already in your mind.
Frankly, when I began reading the literature, I was unconfortable
with the idea that there might be something or someone who
might judge what I've done or not done in my life, so no, I wasn't
looking for conformation. If fact, even today I'm not thrilled with
the prospect. But, I cannot say I had never heard or known
anything about God. So, yes - you are correct in that God was
in my mind.
By the same token, a secularist scientist - where the issue of
_origins_ is concerned, will also have God in mind. This is
Nope. That would be Confirmation Bias.
Ok, I agree, but it is an atheistic confirmation bias. Ie a bias
against even the possibility of God's existance.
almost inescapable. He will search for loopholes to excape
the unconfortable possibility of Gods involvement. Indeed
Nope. He never imagines a god any more than a giant dough
boy. The evidence for each is the same.
There is indirect evidence. Do you know anything about
the Anthropic Principle? if so, how do you explain the remarkable
values of the 26 or so constants having the precise values necessary
for intelligent life, as we know it?
he will invent scenarios to eliminate the very possibility of
God being involved with the beginning. This has motivated
the search for alternative explanations to the beginning and
the seemingly "fine tuned" universe.
And that's why it's all confirmation bias. If he invents
scenarios to eliminate ANYTHING he's actively using a bias
to disprove, which is what he should be doing.
I agree, but neither should he should not be like an ostridge with
his head in the sand. He should follow the evidence wherever
it leads. But instead secular scientist just "shy away" from
the religious implications of these recient discoveries.
But he CAN'T be using a bias to disprove any god for the
simple reason that no evidence of one exist anyway! It would
be like you trying to disprove the effordizing of Zzenbod'n.
If I saw indirect evidence of Zzenbod'n I would _not_ be like
the four monkeys, one with his hands covering his eyes, a 2nd
witn hands covering his ears, a third holding his nose and the
4th with his hands covering his mouth. I would examine both
the evidence both for and against before ariving at an opinion.
It's meaningless! There was never anything present to disprove.
It isn't a question of proving or disproving. It a matter of looking
at the evidence (direct or indirect) and drowing conclusions based
upon this.
There is no evidence of any god, but you WANT there to be
one so it can conform to your beliefs, so out of thin air
you ADD it.
No, this is false. What tended to convinced me was the
discovery that the cosmological constants are fine tuned
to a very high degree. I do not think this can be coincidence.
Has it ever occurred to you that the laws of physics
(Nature) make it impossible for this "coincidence" to be any
other way?
This has been addressed. It is entirely possible. There is no
reason for the constants to have the values they have, they
should be arbitrary. But if one was different by a small degree
the universe would have failed, or failed to produce intelligent
life.
You're missing it. Look. Get a glass of warm water and mix
into it a table spoon of salt. Watch closely the particles
of salt as they slowly dissolve.
Now imagine you could freeze frame the swirls at any point
to examine it closer. Note: Every single grain of salt,
EVERY SINGLE ONE is exactly in ONE position, even while it
moves.
Can any grain be anywhere else? See, the laws of physics,
put each iota EXACTLY where it already is, based on every
property of that grain. Nothing is out of place. It can't be!
Same for the stars, and everything else.
No magical power is putting one grain one place and another
another place, but the natural laws of Nature.
No god or fine tuning required.
It's obvious that you haven'r read very much if anything
about the anthropic which was advanced by Brandon Carter,
Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking. If you had you
would never have offered the above analogy. It's totally
off the mark.
A puddle of water laments, "This hole fits me perfectly; it
must have been designed specifically for me! Therefore,
there must be a creator."
I've seen this puddle argument many times, but for me it
doesn't work, because the puddle can vary, change it's size
shift it's shape and due to seepage or evaporation it can
change it's depth or disappear altogether. There's nothing
constant about it. But unlike the universe, the puddle
doesn't care anything about the, size shape or
deminisional values of the sink in which it finds itself.
If anything it is a good analogy for that which is not
constant.
And yet you won't see the rest of the world that way!
Everything is constantly changing according to the laws that
govern existence. Nature!
The speed of light doesn't change, the Planck constant doesn't
change, the power of gluons don't change. The strong force
doesn't change nor does the weak force change. Do you know
anything about this subject? If not, I don't see where any real
direction for this discussion.
In short, you simply made it up, so you can feel like you
are smart or right. Faith is not evidence! You created a
mental delusion to conform to what you want to believe.
Not so.
I'm afraid so. Unless you can be the first person in history
to supply direct evidence of a god, you are merely
inferring.
I agree there is no direct evidence, but there is nothing wrong
with making inferences from _indirect_evidence. According to
a BBC program on the cosmos a few days ago, a scientist,
one Roger Penrose stated "There is no direct or empirical
evidence of black holes, but we know they exist from
observation and measurement of other objects in the
vicinity.. and how they are affected".
Excuse me. You said "measurement"?
The black hole was not directly measured. But
it's presence was _infered_ through indirect evidence - the
altered movement of a nearby object, but not the Black hole
itself.
That would be physical empirical data, would it not?
It's indirect evidence. In the same sense as the flow
of electrons through a wire are measured through
indirect methods. The Big Bang is known only
through indirect evidence such as the expanding
universe, the special theory of relativity, the uniform
cosmic microwave background radiation which
is the same in all directions and several other
discoveries which I see not need to go into.
What would you be measuring in a "god" sort of way? And how
would it be any different than measuring an imaginary dream
from an imaginary source?
It's impossible to directly measure God, we cannot weigh him,
we cannot discect him place under a microscope, we cannot
put him in a cage and study him. The only way to determine
anything about him is through indirect evidence. To me the
anthropic principle is indirect evidence.
As an example; he discussed a dual star system in
another galaxie where a visiable star is accompanied by
something unseen. "By carefully measuring the wobble of the
visual star... we concluded that it's companion is a black
hole." This is indirect evidence of the existance of a black
hole. Planets were deduced from the wabble of stars in other
galaxies.
Sometimes police must infer what happened at a crime
scene from circunstantual and indirect evidence. For me
the very existance of these fine tuned constants is indirect
evidence that something was "monkeying with the physics",
to quote Fred Hoyle.
You even admitted "it's the simplest
explanation". An explanation without factual support is
merely opinion.
This is true.
Everything you cite simply points to the fact that YOU DO
NOT KNOW. So how could you possibly conclude a god? (The
answer is the definition of Confirmation Bias.)
When one arrives at a conclusion from indirect evidence
this is not a bias.
Perhaps the "fine tuning" you're talking about is perceived
as evidence, when in reality it is simply the normal state
found within Nature. These fine tunings cannot be any other
way BECAUSE of the natural laws of Nature.
You have made this claim several times but offered no evidence
to support it. So it is only your opinion, nothing more.
Furthermore you are in a minority who fail to recognize the
fine tuned aspect of the cosmological costants.
If you know anything about the *fine tuned* constants, how do you
think the evidence in support should be intrepreted? I have read the
most, if not all of the alternative intrepretations of the evidence,
including George Wald's explanation, Stephen Weinburg's,
Allen Guth etc. These scientist have dealt with this issue, but you
deny it's existance.
[snip]>
You have offered nothing. Do you just accept that the Universe
just
exist? Some scientist have acknowledged that the B.B. has religious
overtones. That is why other scientist tend to shy away from a
beginning of the universe.
That's nice. But, yes, the universe exists. That's a fact!
You can't seem to get past the idea that matter/energy can
have an eternal nature. You INSIST that for it to exist, it
MUST have a creator.
But space, matter and time is _not_ eternal in nature. It all
began with the Big Bang.
Let's suppose that that's true. (It's not,
And your reason for believing this is not true, especially since most
astronomers and astrophysicist do belive it is?
but it's not
really relevant, so..) So how does MEST having a "start
point" automatically suggests a god?
Taken alone it doesn't.
See, if MEST must have a creator, then for the same reason,
your god must have a creator.
In his work "Critique of Pure Reason", the philosopher,
Immanuel Kant said there were two only two possibilities:
the universe had a beginning, this he called thesis, or the
universe did not, it was eternal, he called this antithesis.
Yeah, we're past that; we're talking about god. Did god have
a beginning, and why?
If it's possible to have anything be eternal...why wouldn't
it be the fact that matter/energy can't be destroyed or
created? How would you define that if not eternal?
This is according to Einstein's theory which did not apply
at the moment of the big bang.
Hawking, one of the skeptics unconfortable with the
universe with a beginning attempted to get rid of it.
He advanced his "no boundries" proposal. He wrote,
"However, the laws (of physics) do not tell us what the
universe should looked like when it started.......So long
as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had
a creator. But if the universe is really self contained,
having no boundrary or edge it would have neither
beginning not end: it would simply be.
What place then for a creator?"
If God is eternal as Christians believe, "what place, then
for a creator?" (to borrow Hawking's words)
Because if your god did not
REQUIRE a creator of its own, then it's possible that MEST
did not require a creator of its own.
But this is _not_ the case.
Then your logic cannot be the case. Either it had a
beginning or it didn't.
According to Hawking, if the universe is eternal, then there would
be no need for a creator, this obviously is true, and if God is
eternal, there is no need for a creator of God.
If you're saying it is possible for something to come from
nothing (god) but NOT possible for the universe to come from
nothing, then you are violating your own reasoning.
But if that logic is true, then for god to exist, it MUST
have a creator!
You keep saying this, but you do not explain why this must
be the case.
Something can't come from nothing.
Exactly, only God can make something from nothing. And as
you stated the "universe is a fact", and it had a beginning. You've
discounted God, but you have offered no alternative.
It doesn't require an alternative!!!!!! God is a made up
explanation for not understanding how something can be
eternal (the universe). But you easily accept that a god can
be eternal.
There is a difference. The universe is not eternal, it had a
beginning: this is accepted by the virtually all astronomers
and astrophysicist. I didn't have a problem with the
"steady state" (eternal) universe before it was falsified
by the Big bang which began the univese.
STOP RIGHT THERE AND GET A HANDLE ON THAT! (Until you do,
you will have the God Delusion that all Christians have.)
If one refuses to recognize that the universe is fine tuned, for
life, then that person has his head in the sand.
Fine tuned! Classic confirmation bias.
I didn't invent the phrase. And I didn't believe it
initially!
I get the impression you are not very familiar with this subject.
I get the impression you want to create an entity out of
thin air and give it attributes that don't agree with Nature.
That's just your opinion. You don't really address anything thing
that modern astronomy and the recient discoveries of this
branch of science has brought about in recient history.
The laws of Nature make it impossible for things to be
other than where they are supposed to be!
Is this your claim? Can you provide evidence to back up your claim?
It makes the universe 'appear' to be fine tuned, when in
reality EVERYTHING is where it can ONLY be! See; based on
the parameters and properties of our earth, for example, it
CANNOT be anywhere else than where it is...
Our earth? You are kidding. So you are saying the scientist who
have observed the expansion of the universe, the etc are only
speaking relative to the earth. That they are wrong?
I said, "for example". Actually anything will suffice.
Not by magic, but by the laws of Nature!
What laws of nature existed prior to Planck Time? If you know
then you are far in advance of todays scientist.
It's still nature.
And you know this how?
[snip]> >>>>>>
In the News Group Sci. skeptic on 8-17-06 at 5:45 PM,
In responce to Richard Smol's question: "So what created
the creator then? Or did it just come into existence by itself?"
I wrote:
One of the fundamental laws of physics is cause and
effect, however, the laws of physics breakdown at Planck
time 10^-43 seconds after the big Bang....... So I am not
talking on behalf of Tommy's comments. It seems we are
in agreement on some points. One of these points being
God the Creator would have to be present at the beginning
of the universe.
I cannot see how your reply to the other newsgroup answered
the question "So what created the creator.." there either.
This was only to point out that I was not talking on behalf of
Tommy's comment. I had arived at much the same conclusion,
as I expressed, earlier on another NG.
You seem to be bringing something to the table that answers
nothing asked. How does Planck time answer the question of
god's existence?
Are you not following the course of the discussion? The question
was raised if everything has a cause what caused God? Cause and
effect are laws of physics that are well understood by scientist.
But
as Hawking states, "In a sense, theorist have been able to
approach
but not cross the Planck wall because they have been able to fudge
their equations to carry them backwards over critical points
of time in the universe's development.
The Planck wall is the universe's ultimatium: There will be no
further hedging of equations.....This is where all your equations
and all of your thinking together in the clearest statement of all
mankind's history about the cosmos before you will know how
it began. And still you may never know."
Ref: see Stephen Hawkings Universe, pgs.88 - 98.
Maybe this is where God draws the line. :~ (
See! You input a god where understanding fails!
You misconstrueed this. This was to demonstrate that modern
laws of physics and a classic law of physics, ie cause and
effect does not hold past the Planck wall.
Even if it didn't, you arbitrarily input a god!
Not arbitrarily. It required much study and reading. I'm still open
to contrary evidence.
Therefore to insist
that God must be caused is a moot point. Cause and effect
are laws decreed by the creator, God.
You did it again. You keep inputing a god.
(Even if there becomes no such thing as cause and effect
[extremely dumb, but accepted to get you past the minor
stuff], how in HELL did a god enter the picture?
[snip
Ps, I have a family member in ICU in very critical condition. I'll
get back to this, but right now, I'm having difficulty concentrating.
Best Wishes,
Dan
.
