Rejecting 'Atheism', Beyond Labels: Rethinking How We Define Non-Belief: And Why I Choose 'None'

MayCaesar

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ; @Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;

You won't be convinced, your demon won't permit it.

I am simply one who loves Jesus Christ and find Him to be the focus of all life and purpose and Eternity. If you don't desire to listen to what I have to say, why continue to respond? I think you're desperate and you know you're in a desperate state and the death in Hell that awaits you. Yet you're too proud and to demonically persuaded to give Jesus a chance just as @Factfinder and @ZeusAres42 are.

You know, for once you asked the right question. I have no reply to it. I think I should just stop procrastinating and focus on my work.

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

I might be way off but I have wondered if Rickey is not sincere. There do exist numerous people in this world that don't believe a word of what they are saying but promote it all the same. 

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw

William Lane Craig can and has admitted that his faith is not based on any evidence, reason or logic. Why can't you and @just_sayin? 

And if you are claiming it is based on evidence that you need to back that up and support it. So far, all you have done so far is just repeat, repeat, and then repeat again the same old circular argument ad nauseam. If you are trying to persuade, convince others of what you know then you are going an incredibly wrong way about it. 

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

I might be way off but I have wondered if Rickey is not sincere. There do exist numerous people in this world that don't believe a word of what they are saying but promote it all the same. 

I wouldn't say he's not sincere. I think he believes with all his heart, but also at the same time he just likes to feel intelligent about his faith. As if it wasn't blind faith. So he enjoys the act of arguing about it. Problem is when confronted by people who do not believe and articulate rational reasons for not believing he begins to experience internal feelings of insecurity. Hence always the retreat into scripture with a need to warn us for not believing. I believe he experience bouts with emerging doubt. That's would explain the switching back and forth from trying to be civil to self righteous condemnation. Doctrine teaches from scripture to resist temptation. (and that's what doubt is considered to be) So he gets caught in a kind of spiritual malaise where he's using us to try and balance his faith with reason. I felt the same pangs of internal conflict whenever I had to resist strong argumentation to defend the faith I had and only had faith to do it with.

Resisting doubt by reassuring himself he's in a better position than us nons and is not going to hell cause he still believes. Biblically it's referred to edification of ongoing faith but you're not supposed to seek it from entanglements from nons. That I think is just religious pride on his part. He should be getting spiritual edification from his religious peers. He may think his peers aren't up to his own level of perceived indwelling of the holy spirit.

That's my opinion. If he wasn't truly a believer, what would be the gain for him for posting fallaciously on purpose? Not like we're sending money. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

William Lane Craig can and has admitted that his faith is not based on any evidence, reason or logic. Why can't you and @just_sayin? 

And if you are claiming it is based on evidence that you need to back that up and support it. So far, all you have done so far is just repeat, repeat, and then repeat again the same old circular argument ad nauseam. If you are trying to persuade, convince others of what you know then you are going an incredibly wrong way about it. 

@ZeusAres42 ; @Factfinder @just_sayin ;

William Lane Craig has his faith and his walk and I have mine.  My faith is supported by "evidence" presented in Nature...supernatural evidence that could only manifest through the work of a divine, omnipotent, Creator-Designer and when I searched, this omnipotent Creator introduces Himself, with much detail, in the Canon of Scripture and in the hypostatic union relevant to Jesus Christ; therefore, my faith is bolstered by what I see and by the life of Jesus and His words, His ministry. 

I am here NOT in a vain attempt to convince you of anything...you are the property of Satan but I am here out of obedience as my Lord has ordained that I be here at this time for this purpose to warn you, to tell you, that you are dying in your sin and unless your sincerely repent and believe the Gospel; that is, unless you believe that Jesus is Messiah who died and shed His innocent blood for the forgiveness of your sin and that Jesus, alone, provides the Path to eternal life by faith in Him as your Messiah, you WILL die in your sin and you WILL die in Hell. This is not just a discussion or a debate...this is a divine mandate...and you're running out of Time.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

I am here NOT in a vain attempt to convince you of anything...you are the property of Satan but I am here out of obedience as my Lord has ordained that I be here at this time for this purpose to warn you, to tell you, that you are dying in your sin and unless your sincerely repent and believe the Gospel...

You just contradicted yourself. There is no point in 'warning' someone if you know the attempt to be in 'vain'. If your god doesn't know what you know, then why trust it? If it does know then your statement above is a deception. You just like to argue for some emotional rise.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

I wouldn't say he's not sincere. I think he believes with all his heart, but also at the same time he just likes to feel intelligent about his faith. As if it wasn't blind faith. So he enjoys the act of arguing about it. Problem is when confronted by people who do not believe and articulate rational reasons for not believing he begins to experience internal feelings of insecurity. Hence always the retreat into scripture with a need to warn us for not believing. I believe he experience bouts with emerging doubt. That's would explain the switching back and forth from trying to be civil to self righteous condemnation. Doctrine teaches from scripture to resist temptation. (and that's what doubt is considered to be) So he gets caught in a kind of spiritual malaise where he's using us to try and balance his faith with reason. I felt the same pangs of internal conflict whenever I had to resist strong argumentation to defend the faith I had and only had faith to do it with.

Resisting doubt by reassuring himself he's in a better position than us nons and is not going to hell cause he still believes. Biblically it's referred to edification of ongoing faith but you're not supposed to seek it from entanglements from nons. That I think is just religious pride on his part. He should be getting spiritual edification from his religious peers. He may think his peers aren't up to his own level of perceived indwelling of the holy spirit.

That's my opinion. If he wasn't truly a believer, what would be the gain for him for posting fallaciously on purpose? Not like we're sending money. 

This helped me formulate an interesting idea in my head. You are familiar with political compasses, moral compasses, behavioral compasses and the like, correct? Economical freedom vs social freedom, good-evil vs chaotic-lawful, etc.

I propose a compass for the habits of one's mind: orderliness vs artistry. Orderliness describes one's propensity to concrete, hard, logical thinking, such as one needed when making a hard business decision, or solving a math equation. Artistry describes one's propensity to let their mind wander, consider seemingly outlandish possibilities, be guided by loose intuition and emotion.
Both of these habits are important, and they have different utility. Therefore we have 4 general categories of people:

1. Low orderliness and low artistry. These are people with just undeveloped thinking in general. Their mind is mostly stagnant, they just live their life day by day and do not care about much. These are the stereotypical "rural rednecks", pardon the expression.
2. High orderliness and low artistry. These are people commonly found in STEM fields. They are able to think logically and solve very hard technical problems, but they do not have much imagination and favor following the path laid by others than carving their own. Think of the stereotypical Asian student studying hard day by day and not having many aspirations in life beyond studying.
3. Low orderliness and high artistry. These are people who like to let their mind play. Artists of all sorts, writers, public performers. They do not particularly care how strictly logical what they do is: they let the inspiration guide them.
4. High orderliness and high artistry. These are the thought leaders, business stars, team builders... People who constantly try to push the envelope and to come up with new ideas, but are able to do it within a structured framework, and focus when it matters.

It seems to me that people like Rickey belong to the 3rd category. It is not that he is blind or "" - his mind just does not work the way needed to logically think his position through and find holes in it.

It also seems to me that people from different categories may have a hard time understanding each other. For example, consider people from the 2nd and 4th group talking to each other: the person from the 2nd group just will not be able to relate to the cool idea the other person is proposing as it seem too "out there", too impractical and unrealistic - and, conversely, the person from the 4th group will be frustrated by how limited in his perception his partner's thinking is.

People from different categories play different roles in the society, and within each category there will naturally be excesses, people who take their thinking style too far. Not everyone from group 3 is Rickey, a passionate religious fanatic - but passionate religious fanatics are certainly there, and they have been responsible for a lot of blood throughout human history. I would not be surprised if the version of Rickey growing up in the 1200-s would be one of the first to take up the sword and march to Jerusalem to fight the infidels. Nowadays the particular environment he finds himself in just does not facilitate this kind of action, and he limits his self-expression to posting angry rants on the Internet.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

I am here NOT in a vain attempt to convince you of anything...you are the property of Satan but I am here out of obedience as my Lord has ordained that I be here at this time for this purpose to warn you, to tell you, that you are dying in your sin and unless your sincerely repent and believe the Gospel...

You just contradicted yourself. There is no point in 'warning' someone if you know the attempt to be in 'vain'. If your god doesn't know what you know, then why trust it? If it does know then your statement above is a deception. You just like to argue for some emotional rise.

@Factfinder ; @MayCaesar ; @ZeusAres ; The Holy Spirit has warned you via your conscience all your adult life...His warnings were not in vain...the Spirit draws all men to Jesus...you just don't listen. Jesus did not command that I go and tell only those who would listen and receive but to go into all the World and tell everyone...even though only a relatively "few" will be saved from death in Hell (Matthew 7:13)....it is not in vain to tell you...to warn you...even though you will not respond as you belong to Satan...I'm not responsible for YOUR volition...I am responsible to be obedient to what my Lord has commanded...I have warned you repeatedly...

just_sayin

just_sayin said:

@ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

If I may I would now like to genuinly explore how you have come about to know what you claim to know about God and about science here for that matter. Let's start here:

I am amazed that someone could believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't know how they could logically conclude such a thing.  Yet, a lot of atheist are more willing to believe that the universe came from nothing, than believe that the universe came from God.

When you mention the universe coming from 'nothing,' how do you define 'nothing' in this context? And how does this concept compare to the explanations provided by contemporary physics or cosmology regarding the origins of the universe?

When I see the astronomical improbabilities of all of the fundamental forces in our universe having values that will allow for a universe, not just for life, I can't help but think that it is more probable than not that such a universe is the product of a mind than random chance.  When I see the complexity of even the simplest life form and look at its chromosomal structure - it certainly looks like code to me, and code needs someone to write it.  People like Cricket, who co discovered DNA have admitted the complexity of even the simplest forms of life are beyond scientific explanations, yet atheists believe that non-life created life.  Yet, they can't provide a single example of this happening.  They can't create life, even using their minds, to do so.  Yet, they think it is more likely life came from non-life, even though it can't be explained or replicated even with intentional intellect behind it. 

You’ve mentioned the astronomical improbabilities of the fundamental forces in our universe. How do you determine the probabilities that these constants could arise in a manner that allows for the existence of the universe and life? And have you ever explored alternative scientific explanations that account for these constants without invoking a mind?

Science suggests that the universe had a beginning.  That at some point the universe made up 0 space.  How much stuff can you fit into 0 space.  According to many atheists, you can fit entire universes in 0 space.  This to me, seems worse than appealing to magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat.  I've said this before, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. 

How do you reconcile the appearance of design with the scientific understanding of evolution and natural selection? What makes the scientific explanations for the origin of life less plausible to you than the idea of a designer?

In addition to the above I would also like to aske the following:

• Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'faith' in the context given regarding not having enough faith to be an Atheist? And how does this 'faith' compare to the confidence or trust that individuals place in scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and life?
• Also, when it comes to scientific attempts to understand the universe's origins and the emergence of life, how do you evaluate the evidence and theories proposed by scientists? What criteria do you use to assess the validity and reliability of scientific explanations?
  
• Lastly, have you ever considered how scientists and those who may not believe in a deity approach the questions of the universe’s origins and the complexity of life? What are your thoughts on the scientific process and its ability to investigate and explain natural phenomena?

I think many atheists think the nothing of the universe is just that - the absence of anything.  Lawrence Krauss in his book a Universe from Nothing - means a virtual particle (quantum fluctuation). In other words a bit of energy that for fractions of a second appear as matter.  The actual duration can vary, but it is typically extremely brief, in the order of 10^(-21) seconds or even shorter.  The problems with this theory are many:
1)  A fluctuation that is big enough to create a universe would last for even a shorter duration of time.  The problem is that the formation of the fundamental forces of the universe are calculated to take much more time than that to form, meaning that the fluctuation appears and disappears before inflation can kick in.  In other words you can't get a universe out of it.
2) You need a perfect 0 net energy in the universe for this to work.  No calculation shows this - in fact, you made a big deal recently that it was found to not be a net zero measurement.  
3) If this could happen, then we should see examples of it happening in our universe - this is the Boltzmann brain argument
4) As Sean Carroll points out that it is much more likely that we should be observing a much smaller universe than what we do - for it is much more likely to have much smaller fluctuations of energy.  We should see lots of stuff coming into being like bicycles and big screen tvs - all of which are much less complex than universes, and we should see them all the time.  The fact we don't suggests that this can't happen since its had infinity to happen already. 

The universe does appear to be finely tuned.  Every scientist agrees on this.  Let's look at just a few examples.

1) The low entropy of the universe that was needed to create a universe.  Nobel prize winner Roger Penrose calculated that, out of 10^10^123 possible starting points for the universe only one would have as low entropy as ours.  He observed there is no known reason for the fundamental forces to have the values that they do.   Again, to put the number 10^10^23 into perspective, this number is massively larger than the number of particles in the universe 10^10^80.  That smaller number means if just one electron in the entire universe was more or less, then the universe could not have formed, but remember that 10^10^123 is much, much, much larger.  That's incredibly fine tuned.

2)  The gravitational constant and the weak force constants.  If you subscribe to a quantum field theory class of theories for the creation of the universe then the cosmological constant (Λ) needs to be a magnitude of fifty orders as though you expected an inch and measured 1,578,282,282,282,282,282,282,282, 282,282,282,282,282,282,282 miles instead - of the amount of the vacuum energy to account for inflation.  As Cosmologist Paul Davies explains:

"If G, or gw, differed from their actual values by even one part in 10^50, the precise balance against Λbare [the "true" cosmological constant] would be upset, and the structure of the universe would be drastically altered. ...If Λ were several orders of magnitude greater, the expansion of the universe would be explosive, and it is doubtful if galaxies could ever have formed against such a disruptive force. If Λ were negative, the explosion would be replaced by a catastrophic collapse of the universe. It is truly extraordinary that such dramatic effects would result from changes in the strength of either gravity, or the weak force, of less than one part in 10^50." -Paul Davies, Physicist

That's incredibly fined tuned - a small variation (think just a few particles plus or minus) results in no universe - either the gravitational force is too strong and the universe crushes in on itself, or it is too weak and atoms can't form.  Again, THERE IS NO KNOWN LAW THAT FORCES THE FUNDAMENTAL FORCES TO HAVE THE VALUES THEY DO.  

3) The Strong Nuclear force constant - As Walter Bradley explains -

"A 2 percent reduction in the strong force and its associated constant would preclude the formation of nuclei with larger numbers of protons, making the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen impossible. On the other hand, if the strong force and associated constant were just 2 percent greater than it is, then all hydrogen would be converted to helium and heavier elements from the beginning, leaving the universe no water and no long-term fuel for the stars." 

If neutrons were just a fraction stronger or weaker then we don't get any elements other than hydrogen - so no water, and no fuel for stars.  Now I am going to mention this a third time, because I want to be sure you get this point - THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT COMPELS ANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FORCES TO HAVE THE VALUES THEY DO.  In fact there are lots of evidence which suggests that the values should be very different - such as the cosmological constant.  I could continue to do this for dozens more aspects of how our universe is finely tuned.  Now you can argue well we just got lucky.  Winning the lottery once is lucky.  Winning it every day for a billion trillion years though is more than luck.  

Regarding evolution - I don't need evolution to be true or false for my faith.  I think you owe some proof though for such a theory.  If non-life can created life then why haven't thousands of scientists who have been focused on the issue and have spent billions of dollars to create life - failed to do , what non-thinking minerals created?  They can't even explain a process that will create even a simple single celled life form.  Honest scientists will tell you that if evolution occurred there are at least 10 'miracles' that had to have happened for it occur - so in my thinking, if evolution happened, its evidence for God.  If you think non-life created life without any aid then create some life.  Prove your point.  

I think it takes real faith to look at the complexity of the universe, the fact it had a beginning, the complexity of life, and the absence of evidence to replicate any of it, to believe there is no God.  If you walked along a beach and found a cell phone.  I guess you could reason that the wind and minerals mixed in such a way to build a functioning cell phone, but it is much more reasonable to believe that an intelligence made the phone you found.  In the same way, it is much more reasonable, looking at all the evidence to conclude that there is a God.  

Just an observation.  Atheists will often claim that their views are based on science, but once someone tries to have a scientific discussion with them about why God is more probable of an explanation, they run away.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Could be that all attempts to have such discussions with you go nowhere because you ignore everything that your opponents said. I explained to you on, at least, two occasions, for instance, what Penrose was talking about and in what context - yet you still keep misrepresenting his argument. It happened with many other arguments that I made - you either ignored them, or started actively misrepresenting them. Eventually one has to conclude that you are not willing to have serious scientific discussions and stop trying to engage in them with you.

Just an observation.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

Could be that all attempts to have such discussions with you go nowhere because you ignore everything that your opponents said. I explained to you on, at least, two occasions, for instance, what Penrose was talking about and in what context - yet you still keep misrepresenting his argument. It happened with many other arguments that I made - you either ignored them, or started actively misrepresenting them. Eventually one has to conclude that you are not willing to have serious scientific discussions and stop trying to engage in them with you.

Just an observation.

Let me just quote Penrose verbatim:  (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 copyright 1989, Penguin Books)

How special was the big bang?

Let us try to understand just how much of a constraint a condition such as WEYL = 0 at the big bang was. For simplicity (as with the above discussion) we shall suppose that the universe is closed. In order to be able to work out some clear-cut figures, we shall assume, furthermore, that the number B of baryons-that is, the number of protons and neutrons, taken together-in the universe is roughly given by

B = 10^80.

(There is no particular reason for this figure, apart from the fact that, observationally B must be at least as large as this; Eddington once claimed to have calculated B exactly, obtaining a figure which was close to the above value! No-one seems to believe this particular calculation any more, but the value 10^80 appears to have stuck.) If B were taken to be larger than this (and perhaps, in actual fact, B = infinity) then the figures that we would obtain would be even more striking than the extraordinary figures that we shall be arriving at in a minute! Try to imagine the phase space (cf. p. 177) of the entire universe! Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a `pin' which is to be placed at some point in the phase space (Fig. 7.19 not shown). Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator's aim depends upon the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively `easy' to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. (Recall that the entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the volume of the phase space concerned.) But in order to start off the universe in state of low entropy-so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics-the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result? In order to answer this question, we must first turn to a very remarkable formula, due to Jacob Bekenstein (1972) and Stephen Hawking (1975), which tells us what the entropy of a black hole must be.

Consider a black hole, and suppose that its horizon's surface area is A. The Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the black hole's entropy is the:

Sbh = A/4 + (kc^3 / Gh)

where k is Boltzmann's constant, c is the speed of light, G is Newton's gravitational constant, and h is Planck's constant over 2pi. The essential part of this formula is the A/4. The part in parentheses merely consists of the appropriate physical constants. Thus, the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area. For a spherically symmetrical black hole, this surface area turns out to be proportional to the square of the mass of the hole

A = m^2 x 8pi(G^2/c^4).

Putting this together with the Bekenstein-Hawking formula, we find that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the square of its mass:

Sbh = m^2 x 2pi (kG/hc)

Thus, the entropy per unit mass of a black hole is proportional to its mass, and so gets larger and larger for larger and larger black holes. Hence, for a given amount of mass-or equivalently, by Einstein's E = mc^2, for a given amount of energy-the greatest entropy is achieved when the material has all collapsed into a black hole! Moreover, two black holes gain (enormously) in entropy when they mutually swallow one another up to produce a single united black hole! Large black holes, such as those likely to be found in galactic centres, will provide absolutely stupendous amounts of entropy-far and away larger than the other kinds of entropy that one encounters in other types of physical situation.

There is actually a slight qualification needed to the statement that the greatest entropy is achieved when all the mass is concentrated in a black hole. Hawking's analysis of the thermodynamics of black holes, shows that there should be a non-zero temperature also associated with a black hole. One implication of this is that not quite all of the mass-energy can be contained within the black hole, in the maximum entropy state, the maximum entropy being achieved by a black hole in equilibrium with a `thermal bath of radiation'. The temperature of this radiation is very tiny indeed for a black hole of any reasonable size. For example, for a black hole of a solar mass, this temperature would be about 10^-7 K, which is somewhat smaller than the lowest temperature that has been measured in any laboratory to date, and very considerably lower than the 2.7 K temperature of intergalactic space. For larger black holes, the Hawking temperature is even lower!

The Hawking temperature would become significant for our discussion only if either: (i) much tinier black holes, referred to as mini-black holes, might exist in our universe; or (ii) the universe does not recollapse before the Hawking evaporation time-the time according to which the black hole would evaporate away completely. With regard to (i), mini-black holes could only be produced in a suitably chaotic big bang. Such mini-black holes cannot be very numerous in our actual universe, or else their effects would have already been observed; moreover, according to the viewpoint that I am expounding here, they ought to be absent altogether. As regards (ii), for a solar-mass black hole, the Hawking evaporation time would be some 10^54 times the present age of the universe, and for larger black holes, it would be considerably longer. It does not seem that these effects should substantially modify the above arguments.

To get some feeling for the hugeness of black-hole entropy, let us consider what was previously thought to supply the largest contribution to the entropy of the universe, namely the 2.7 K black-body background radiation. Astrophysicists had been struck by the enormous amounts of entropy that this radiation contains, which is far in excess of the ordinary entropy figures that one encounters in other processes (e.g. in the sun). The background radiation entropy is something like 10^8 for every baryon (where I am now choosing `natural units', so that Boltzmann's constant, is unity). (In effect, this means that there are 10^8 photons in the background radiation for every baryon.) Thus, with 10^88 baryons in all, we should have a total entropy of

10^88

for the entropy in the background radiation in the universe. Indeed, were it not for the black holes, this figure would represent the total entropy of the universe, since the entropy in the background radiation swamps that in all other ordinary processes. The entropy per baryon in the sun, for example, is of order unity. On the other hand, by black-hole standards, the background radiation entropy is utter `chicken feed'. For the Bekenstein-Hawking formula tells us that the entropy per baryon in a solar mass black hole is about 10^20, in natural units, so had the universe consisted entirely of solar mass black holes, the total figure would have been very much larger than that given above, namely

10^100.

Of course, the universe is not so constructed, but this figure begins to tell us how `small' the entropy in the background radiation must be considered to be when the relentless effects of gravity begin to be taken into account. Let us try to be a little more realistic. Rather than populating our galaxies entirely with black holes, let us take them to consist mainly of ordinary stars-some 10^11 of them-and each to have a million (i.e. 10^6) solar-mass black-hole at its core (as might be reasonable for our own Milky Way galaxy). Calculation shows that the entropy per baryon would now be actually somewhat larger even than the previous huge figure, namely now 10^21, giving a total entropy, in natural units, of

10^101.

We may anticipate that, after a very long time, a major fraction of the galaxies' masses will be incorporated into the black holes at their centres. When this happens, the entropy per baryon will be 10^31, giving a monstrous total of

10^111.

However, we are considering a closed universe so eventually it should recollapse; and it is not unreasonable to estimate the entropy of the final crunch by using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula as though the whole universe had formed a black hole. This gives an entropy per baryon of 10^43, and the absolutely stupendous total, for the entire big crunch would be

10^123.

This figure will give us an estimate of the total phase-space volume V available to the Creator, since this entropy should represent the logarithm of the volume of the (easily) largest compartment. Since 10^123 is the logarithm of the volume, the volume must be the exponential of 10^123, i.e.

V = 10^10^123.

in natural units! (Some perceptive readers may feel that I should have used the figure e^10^123, but for numbers of this size, the a and the 10 are essentially interchangeable!) How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? It does not much matter whether we take the value

W = 10^10^101 or W = 10^10^88

given by the galactic black holes or by the background radiation, respectively, or a much smaller (and, in fact, more appropriate) figure which would have been the actual figure at the big bang. Either way, the ratio of V to W will be, closely

V/W = 10^10^123.

This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10^123 successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment. But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint

WEYL = 0

(or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space. The assumption that this constraint applies at any initial (but not final) space-time singularity, I have termed The Weyl Curvature Hypothesis. Thus, it would seem, we need to understand why such a time-asymmetric hypothesis should apply if we are to comprehend where the second law has come from.

How can we gain any further understanding of the origin of the second law? We seem to have been forced into an impasse. We need to understand why space-time singularities have the structures that they appear to have; but space-time singularities are regions where our understanding of physics has reached its limits. The impasse provided by the existence of space-time singularities is sometimes compared with another impasse: that encountered by physicists early in the century, concerning the stability of atoms (cf. p. 228). In each case, the well-established classical theory had come up with the answer `infinity', and had thereby proved itself inadequate for the task. The singular behaviour of the electromagnetic collapse of atoms was forestalled by quantum theory; and likewise it should be quantum theory that yields a finite theory in place of the `infinite' classical space-time singularities in the gravitational collapse of stars. But it can be no ordinary quantum theory. It must be a quantum theory of the very structure of space and time. Such a theory, if one existed, would be referred to as `quantum gravity'. Quantum gravity's lack of existence is not for want of effort, expertise, or ingenuity on the part of the physicists. Many first-rate scientific minds have applied themselves to the construction of such a theory, but Without success. This is the impasse to which we have been finally led in our attempts to understand the directionality and the flow of time.

The reader may well be asking what good our journey has done us. In our quest for understanding as to why time seems to flow in just one direction and not in the other, we have had to travel to the very ends of time, and where the very notions of space have dissolved away. What have we learnt from all this? We have learnt that our theories are not yet adequate to provide answers, but what good does this do us in our attempts to understand the mind? Despite the lack of an adequate theory, I believe that there are indeed important lessons that we can learn from our journey. We must now head back for home. Our return trip will be more speculative than was the outward one, but in my opinion, there is no other reasonable route back!

Note:  1) When Penrose says creator, he is not referring to a personal God as far as I know, but the source of the universe.  2) As far as I know Penrose is an atheist, 3)  He also makes the same argument in Road to Reality on p. 730.  4) Watched the movie Tennet?  Sean Carroll has a reverse view of time like this.  5) Penrose and Hawking's 'shuttlecock' theory has been widely debunked by the scientific community.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Penrose's general point seems to be that the model in which all points in the phase space (which he defined previously in this book and which I can only hypothesize was based off one of the then-popular cosmological models) are equally likely to be "selected" is at odds with the observed number of baryons in the Universe, therefore a better model is needed. Cosmology is one of those fields of theoretical physics in which people go wild with their models (I have had a co-advisor that was particularly infamous for that), and criticisms of the kind Penrose is making here are very common (and encouraged).

His argument does not at all seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the idea of the Universe evolving fully spontaneously. He is pointing out that we do not have a good model which would explain why the Universe is what it is - which is true, and I would add that such a model might in principle be impossible given metaphysical lack of observations required to validate it. Just like we do not have a good model of consciousness, it is one of the domains of physics in which a lot of work remains to be done.

I fail to see how it in any way supports the idea of intelligent design. If you like, we can go deeper, into the actual equations (which I mostly am familiar with, although it has been 6 years since I worked with this stuff and I am very rusty). If not, I am open to any criticisms of my reading of this snippet.

RickeyHoltsclaw

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

Penrose's general point seems to be that the model in which all points in the phase space (which he defined previously in this book and which I can only hypothesize was based off one of the then-popular cosmological models) are equally likely to be "selected" is at odds with the observed number of baryons in the Universe, therefore a better model is needed. Cosmology is one of those fields of theoretical physics in which people go wild with their models (I have had a co-advisor that was particularly infamous for that), and criticisms of the kind Penrose is making here are very common (and encouraged).

His argument does not at all seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the idea of the Universe evolving fully spontaneously. He is pointing out that we do not have a good model which would explain why the Universe is what it is - which is true, and I would add that such a model might in principle be impossible given metaphysical lack of observations required to validate it. Just like we do not have a good model of consciousness, it is one of the domains of physics in which a lot of work remains to be done.

I fail to see how it in any way supports the idea of intelligent design. If you like, we can go deeper, into the actual equations (which I mostly am familiar with, although it has been 6 years since I worked with this stuff and I am very rusty). If not, I am open to any criticisms of my reading of this snippet.

@MayCaesar ;  Explain origin, explain the human genome void intelligent design? Explain the origin of matter.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

Penrose's general point seems to be that the model in which all points in the phase space (which he defined previously in this book and which I can only hypothesize was based off one of the then-popular cosmological models) are equally likely to be "selected" is at odds with the observed number of baryons in the Universe, therefore a better model is needed. Cosmology is one of those fields of theoretical physics in which people go wild with their models (I have had a co-advisor that was particularly infamous for that), and criticisms of the kind Penrose is making here are very common (and encouraged).

His argument does not at all seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the idea of the Universe evolving fully spontaneously. He is pointing out that we do not have a good model which would explain why the Universe is what it is - which is true, and I would add that such a model might in principle be impossible given metaphysical lack of observations required to validate it. Just like we do not have a good model of consciousness, it is one of the domains of physics in which a lot of work remains to be done.

I fail to see how it in any way supports the idea of intelligent design. If you like, we can go deeper, into the actual equations (which I mostly am familiar with, although it has been 6 years since I worked with this stuff and I am very rusty). If not, I am open to any criticisms of my reading of this snippet.

Penrose admits that the baryons are probably underestimated, increasing the astronomical odds that the two forces under consideration would produce a low entropy universe that could produce a universe.  

As I keep pointing out, the universe appears finely tuned.  There are many such observations that are unbelievably finely tuned.  When you see something that a fraction of change in any number of variables leads to a universe never being able to even form, it is more probable that such precision comes from an intelligence rather than chaos. 

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

The "fine-tuning" argument is a fallacy, and Penrose himself explained that this very argument does not support it: 

"It’s a gross course tuning. The entropy in the gravitational field is ridiculously small compared with the entropy in matter. There’s nothing fine-tuned about it – it’s just huge." - Sir Roger Penrose

Here is a common mental exercise good classical mechanics professors engage their students in. "Imagine if the power by the distance in the expression for the force of gravity was not 2, but just 1.9999999. In light of what we just talked about, think how dramatic the changes would be. Is it not interesting that it happens to be such a nice number?" Then, after giving the students some time to think, they will say, "Yet it absolutely has to be 2. As you have seen, it necessarily has to be 1 less than the number of dimensions in order for the energy conservation law to hold".

And this is what all this "fine tuning" comes down to: the values are so precise exactly because they have to be for the Universe to make sense. It is the observer's bias: if they were not what they are, the Universe would be unrecognizable and we would never be able to have this discussion in the first place. Questions such as "What would happen if the fine-structure constant was not 1/137, but 1/136?", are not sensible, for in order for the constant to be 1/136, many other constants would have to change - and after all constants are changed appropriately, again, we have a set of very precise (but slightly different) constants.

If this does not resonate with you, consider a more down-to-Earth analogy. Imagine that you met the love of your life, an amazing woman, and after a while you two decided to get married. Now I will say, "There are over 4 billion women in the world, yet this particular woman is to be your wife. What are the odds? There has to be intelligent design behind it. Maybe there is a laboratory somewhere where this woman was grown in a vat by a group of scientists, specially for you". What is wrong with my argument here? I am making precisely the same fallacy as those who claim that the Universe is "fine-tuned" on the bases of all constants strangely aligning. They did not have to be what they are - but they had to be connected, and once you fix a few of them, other constants must follow the suit.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; Explain the "fine tuning" of the Universe, the human genome, void a Creator?

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

Penrose's general point seems to be that the model in which all points in the phase space (which he defined previously in this book and which I can only hypothesize was based off one of the then-popular cosmological models) are equally likely to be "selected" is at odds with the observed number of baryons in the Universe, therefore a better model is needed. Cosmology is one of those fields of theoretical physics in which people go wild with their models (I have had a co-advisor that was particularly infamous for that), and criticisms of the kind Penrose is making here are very common (and encouraged).

His argument does not at all seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the idea of the Universe evolving fully spontaneously. He is pointing out that we do not have a good model which would explain why the Universe is what it is - which is true, and I would add that such a model might in principle be impossible given metaphysical lack of observations required to validate it. Just like we do not have a good model of consciousness, it is one of the domains of physics in which a lot of work remains to be done.

I fail to see how it in any way supports the idea of intelligent design. If you like, we can go deeper, into the actual equations (which I mostly am familiar with, although it has been 6 years since I worked with this stuff and I am very rusty). If not, I am open to any criticisms of my reading of this snippet.

Penrose admits that the baryons are probably underestimated, increasing the astronomical odds that the two forces under consideration would produce a low entropy universe that could produce a universe.  

As I keep pointing out, the universe appears finely tuned.  There are many such observations that are unbelievably finely tuned.  When you see something that a fraction of change in any number of variables leads to a universe never being able to even form, it is more probable that such precision comes from an intelligence rather than chaos. 

I missed the part where Penrose says 'god did it'. Can you highlight his words where he said this?

You remind me of a cnn reporter commenting on violent riots calling them peaceful. The universe is vast, the expanse greater than we can honestly imagine. So of course we have not pin pointed exactly causation. Neither have you. We do not know the extent but we know for sure collisions, explosions and endless calamities infest in abundance the far reaching corners of the cosmos. Not exactly what I'd call fine tuned precision.  "God did it" isn't science. It's myth.   

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Explain the origin of matter void a Creator.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Explain the origin of matter void a Creator.

Explain it with a creator. 'God did it don't' count. Bible verses don't count. Scientifically explain each step along the way god used. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Explain the origin of matter void a Creator.

Explain it with a creator. 'God did it don't' count. Bible verses don't count. Scientifically explain each step along the way god used. 

@Factfinder ;  You can't explain creation without a Creator...therefore, you cannot say my Lord is a myth because YOU DON'T KNOW....   Jesus took elements from the unseen Spiritual Realm and fashioned those elements in matter that can be apprehended by a life-form constrained by Time and physics; this is why you and your demonic ilk will NEVER define origin of matter.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Explain the origin of matter void a Creator.

Explain it with a creator. 'God did it don't' count. Bible verses don't count. Scientifically explain each step along the way god used. 

@Factfinder ;  You can't explain creation without a Creator...therefore, you cannot say my Lord is a myth because YOU DON'T KNOW....   Jesus took elements from the unseen Spiritual Realm and fashioned those elements in matter that can be apprehended by a life-form constrained by Time and physics; this is why you and your demonic ilk will NEVER define origin of matter.

Your lord is myth. Yup I pretty much can say that and it's true to boot. You know it is. Zeus took elements from an unseen spiritual realm and fashioned elf fairy dust elements into matter that can be apprehended by a life-form constrained by Time and physics; this is why you and your demonic ilk will NEVER define origin of matter. It's so obvious, don't you have the indwelling of his lightning? Zeus, the one true god.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

The "fine-tuning" argument is a fallacy, and Penrose himself explained that this very argument does not support it: 

"It’s a gross course tuning. The entropy in the gravitational field is ridiculously small compared with the entropy in matter. There’s nothing fine-tuned about it – it’s just huge." - Sir Roger Penrose

Here is a common mental exercise good classical mechanics professors engage their students in. "Imagine if the power by the distance in the expression for the force of gravity was not 2, but just 1.9999999. In light of what we just talked about, think how dramatic the changes would be. Is it not interesting that it happens to be such a nice number?" Then, after giving the students some time to think, they will say, "Yet it absolutely has to be 2. As you have seen, it necessarily has to be 1 less than the number of dimensions in order for the energy conservation law to hold".

And this is what all this "fine tuning" comes down to: the values are so precise exactly because they have to be for the Universe to make sense. It is the observer's bias: if they were not what they are, the Universe would be unrecognizable and we would never be able to have this discussion in the first place. Questions such as "What would happen if the fine-structure constant was not 1/137, but 1/136?", are not sensible, for in order for the constant to be 1/136, many other constants would have to change - and after all constants are changed appropriately, again, we have a set of very precise (but slightly different) constants.

If this does not resonate with you, consider a more down-to-Earth analogy. Imagine that you met the love of your life, an amazing woman, and after a while you two decided to get married. Now I will say, "There are over 4 billion women in the world, yet this particular woman is to be your wife. What are the odds? There has to be intelligent design behind it. Maybe there is a laboratory somewhere where this woman was grown in a vat by a group of scientists, specially for you". What is wrong with my argument here? I am making precisely the same fallacy as those who claim that the Universe is "fine-tuned" on the bases of all constants strangely aligning. They did not have to be what they are - but they had to be connected, and once you fix a few of them, other constants must follow the suit.

LOL. Thank you. I laughed so hard.  The quote you mentioned is from this interview - here.  Penrose is not making the argument that you have attributed to him.  I've seen it explained as such:

To summarise,

fine-tuning compares
the set of universes that permit the existence of life
with
the set of possible universes.

By contrast,

fine-tuning does not compare
the set of universes that permit the existence of life
with
the properties of our universe. - Roger Penrose

Hope that helps you.  There is an interview that Penrose does with William Lane Craig on YouTube that I think you will find interesting. 

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I realize that this discussion for you is just a comedy. Like I said before, the reason no one wants to engage with you in these discussions is that there is no engagement from your end. I have not made the attribution that, once again, you put in my mouth.

It is not interesting for me, someone with strong research background in cosmology, to talk to someone like you about it. I have tried multiple times, and it was always a complete waste of my time, just as it was here. I read carefully the huge quote you sent me, going down to understanding the equations themselves (for which I had to take some extra time to google other equations - taking away from my valuable time that I should have spent preparing for brutal technical interviews today) - and all you have is one false claim about what I said and giggles.

Go walk with your "run away" claims. You have lost virtually all respect I had for you - at this point all I can credit you with is that you are able to form complex sentences. The substance of the actual arguments you make is nil, but you certainly know how to make random stuff sound profound. That is a valuable skill to have in life.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

I realize that this discussion for you is just a comedy. Like I said before, the reason no one wants to engage with you in these discussions is that there is no engagement from your end. I have not made the attribution that, once again, you put in my mouth.

It is not interesting for me, someone with strong research background in cosmology, to talk to someone like you about it. I have tried multiple times, and it was always a complete waste of my time, just as it was here. I read carefully the huge quote you sent me, going down to understanding the equations themselves (for which I had to take some extra time to google other equations - taking away from my valuable time that I should have spent preparing for brutal technical interviews today) - and all you have is one false claim about what I said and giggles.

Go walk with your "run away" claims. You have lost virtually all respect I had for you - at this point all I can credit you with is that you are able to form complex sentences. The substance of the actual arguments you make is nil, but you certainly know how to make random stuff sound profound. That is a valuable skill to have in life.

Wish you all the best on your interview today.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Thanks. Something I take away from this discussion is that I should learn to just walk away when it is clear that a conversation is not going to be productive. I do not know what it is about me that makes me want to engage with every instance of irrationality, often making me say something I cannot take back and regret.

If the conversation is unlikely to go anywhere, that should be it. No point aggravating the situation. I will work on that.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
I am always happy to have scientific discussions with you.  My responses to you were almost exclusively Penrose's own words.  My initial observation was that it has been the so called people of 'faith' who have been posting most of the scientific citations regarding the creation of the universe and the origin of life, while the atheists have been the ones who have seemingly retreated to making faith claims.  If you want to bring more science to the discussion, I would applaud that.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I think that I am plagued by the same problem many people from academia are: they are so used to talking to other academics, that they do not know how to engage with non-academics who have genuine curiosity and some knowledge of the field. When I feel that you are misrepresenting a scientist's position or my argument, I should be able to calmly explain why this is a misrepresentation, without ever letting my passion derail the conversation. Or, again, if I feel unable to do that, I should be able to walk away, or take a pause.

As I said, this is something I am working on, but - no offense meant - I do not see our scientific discussions going anywhere at this point. Maybe in the future, if we can engage in them in a different context.

I will add that this is something I dislike about academia, and something that contributed to my decision to leave it: I do not like it what it does to people. It is a fairly insular environment, and it features a number of positive feedback loops derailing them. I certainly do not like some character traits I have developed while boiling in it, and some of them have to go like old skin on a gecko.

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Again, Still waiting for you to respond to my quesions please I specifically asked you. And if you could refrain from using any deepities for a moment that would be great. Thanks. I don't think you will now but that's fine too. You sounded a little angry in your last post. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks.  

@ZeusAres42 ; I responded to your questions...that's the best I can do...

show me. because I can't find you have repsonded to any of the questions I specifically asked you last. You responded to what I asked just_sayin; not you. Please do no lie. If you could be honest and acually respond then to what I asked you that would be great. Thanks. 

@ZeusAres42 ;  Please use @rickeyholtsclaw to ensure I receive your message.

I'm happy to respond to your question but don't send me a questionnaire...your atheism is not worth that much of my time. You sure do throw around the accusation of "" freely...you're arrogant, cocky and rude. Ask your question .. a question.. I'll respond.

GiantMan

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

I might be way off but I have wondered if Rickey is not sincere. There do exist numerous people in this world that don't believe a word of what they are saying but promote it all the same.