Author Topic: There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists  (Read 801 times)

JennieDar

  • Padawan Learner
  • Posts: 1
There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.

One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

Quote
“Try to imagine phase space… 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 phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe.

Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on 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.

But in order to start off the universe in a 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?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

Quote
“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 07:15:01 AM by JennieDar »

Magdalena

  • Butterfly of Doom.
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7885
  • Gender: Female
Hello, JennieDar, welcome to the forum.

So, you said...
...That Lennox said that Penrose said that a god exists and created this universe, so it's true?

OK.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has Finally Learned to Not Feed The Trolls
  • *****
  • Posts: 6843
  • Gender: Male
Hi, Jennie and welcome to the forum.

Be nice if you could cite sources for quotations and stuff, such as:


http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/

[First link removed as being unnecessary since second is probably "original".]
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 08:41:56 AM by Dave »
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 30147
  • Gender: Male
There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.

One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

Quote
“Try to imagine phase space… 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 phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe.

Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on 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.

But in order to start off the universe in a 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?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

Quote
“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.

Argument from personal incredulity fails. Even if the logic were sound the presumption is that a very big number can not exist. Well at the moment it would appear that the Universe came into being as a quantum event (ten a hundred or a thousand years from now we may look back on this idea and laugh) calculate the number of quanta in the universe and you'll find it is almost infinity larger than the number of particles, so the maths you propose fails too. In addition there is a presumption that there is a 'creator', this is an example of begging the question.

So your proposal stands on three logical fallacies and they stand on yet another, the argument  from authority.

John Lennox is also a well known Christian apologist who is riddled with confirmation bias, when it comes to gods he is no scientist as he ignores the basic unfalsifiability of the 'god hypothesis'.

Thank you for providing such cogent evidence that creationism is just wishful thinking with no evidence to support its claims.

If future please do not post the work of creationists and apologists in the Science area of the forum but here in Creationism/Intelligent Design area of the forum.

Welcome to HAF.

Regards
Chris

 
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Hi, Jennie and welcome to the forum.

Be nice if you could cite sources for quotations and stuff, such as:


http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/

[First link removed as being unnecessary since second is probably "original".]

Thank you, Dave. JennieDar apparently thinks that copy-pasting other people's work without attribution (plagiarism) is just fine.

* * *

JennieDar, your dishonest action above doesn't do you or Christianity any credit--rather the contrary. In any event, Penrose's calculations are firmly based in nothing but humanity's lack of comprehensive knowledge about the origins of the Universe so his inference "therefore God" is rendered unsound. In other words, Penrose's argument is useless except to provide the faithful with spurious reassurance. I don't expect you'll bother to return and actually engage in discussion, but you are certainly welcome to do so, in your own words.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


No one

  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
So, in other words, there's a method to the madness?

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has Finally Learned to Not Feed The Trolls
  • *****
  • Posts: 6843
  • Gender: Male
So, in other words, there's a method to the madness?

Or is there a madness to the method?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has Finally Learned to Not Feed The Trolls
  • *****
  • Posts: 6843
  • Gender: Male
Hi, Jennie and welcome to the forum.

Be nice if you could cite sources for quotations and stuff, such as:


http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/

[First link removed as being unnecessary since second is probably "original".]

Thank you, Dave. JennieDar apparently thinks that copy-pasting other people's work without attribution (plagiarism) is just fine.

* * *

JennieDar, your dishonest action above doesn't do you or Christianity any credit--rather the contrary. In any event, Penrose's calculations are firmly based in nothing but humanity's lack of comprehensive knowledge about the origins of the Universe so his inference "therefore God" is rendered unsound. In other words, Penrose's argument is useless except to provide the faithful with spurious reassurance. I don't expect you'll bother to return and actually engage in discussion, but you are certainly welcome to do so, in your own words.
Even when it is put in quotes. An unattributed quotation is just words. A quotation attributed to a questionable source - containing opinion but no proof - is hardly worth bothering with. Oh, media sources are a sort of exception, especially those with editorial comment - but any sensible person views the media with scepticism and looks for corroborations and foundations elsewhere.

You can't hide these sorts of things form Internet searches, Jennie, so always be honest and give an attribution for quotatiins.

Pity about Penrose getting mixed up in this, he's an atheist according to Wikki and definitely a very clever bloke.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has Finally Learned to Not Feed The Trolls
  • *****
  • Posts: 6843
  • Gender: Male
The Penrose link can probably be traced back to

Quote
ROGER PENROSE. The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness ...

Rather philosophical, should prove a good read. Very quick scan on "god" does not seem to elicit anything that would support Jennie's source's context for using Penrose's name to support any one god - possible bit if the usual creationist selective, out of context quoting?

Links also to The Conversation article

Quote
Arguments why God (very probably) exists

Math and other worlds
In 2004 the great British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness. As Penrose acknowledged, it was a complete puzzle to him how the three interacted with one another outside the ability of any scientific or other conventionally rational model.

https://theconversation.com/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451

There is a link to the .pdf in that article.

Of The Conversation (new to ne) Wiki says:

Quote
The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media outlet that uses content sourced from the academic and research community. Since the Australian website's launch in March 2011,[2] it has expanded into six editions, with the addition of a United Kingdom (UK) version in 2013,[3] United States (US) in 2014,[4] Africa in May 2015,[5] France in September 2015,[6] and Global in September 2016.[7] The Conversation publishes all content under a Creative Commons license and, as of May 2017, reports a monthly online audience of 5.2 million users onsite, and a reach of 35 million people through creative commons republication.[8]

The operating company The Conversation Media Group is a not-for-profit educational charity owned by The Conversation Trust. The Conversation is funded by the university and research sector, government and business.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conversation_(website)

Seems to have originated in Oz, any of you guys down there heard of it?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Unless JennieDar created the page you linked to, Dave, she plagiarized. For example,
she didn't put the following in quotes despite the fact that it's a direct quote from the page: "And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator [...]"
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Bluenose

  • Has Given Up Counting Angels On Pinheads
  • ***
  • Posts: 981
  • Gender: Male
  • Final approach to HMAS Melbourne CVS-21 (1980)
The Penrose link can probably be traced back to

Quote
ROGER PENROSE. The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness ...

Rather philosophical, should prove a good read. Very quick scan on "god" does not seem to elicit anything that would support Jennie's source's context for using Penrose's name to support any one god - possible bit if the usual creationist selective, out of context quoting?

Links also to The Conversation article

Quote
Arguments why God (very probably) exists

Math and other worlds
In 2004 the great British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness. As Penrose acknowledged, it was a complete puzzle to him how the three interacted with one another outside the ability of any scientific or other conventionally rational model.

https://theconversation.com/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451

There is a link to the .pdf in that article.

Of The Conversation (new to ne) Wiki says:

Quote
The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media outlet that uses content sourced from the academic and research community. Since the Australian website's launch in March 2011,[2] it has expanded into six editions, with the addition of a United Kingdom (UK) version in 2013,[3] United States (US) in 2014,[4] Africa in May 2015,[5] France in September 2015,[6] and Global in September 2016.[7] The Conversation publishes all content under a Creative Commons license and, as of May 2017, reports a monthly online audience of 5.2 million users onsite, and a reach of 35 million people through creative commons republication.[8]

The operating company The Conversation Media Group is a not-for-profit educational charity owned by The Conversation Trust. The Conversation is funded by the university and research sector, government and business.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conversation_(website)

Seems to have originated in Oz, any of you guys down there heard of it?

Nope
“The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has Finally Learned to Not Feed The Trolls
  • *****
  • Posts: 6843
  • Gender: Male
Unless JennieDar created the page you linked to, Dave, she plagiarized. For example,
she didn't put the following in quotes despite the fact that it's a direct quote from the page: "And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator [...]"

Ah, didn't spot that!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has Finally Learned to Not Feed The Trolls
  • *****
  • Posts: 6843
  • Gender: Male
Hmm, this gets interesting, if a bit beyond this bear of little brain.

Lennox, in  "God's Undertaker: has science buried God?", as extracted by  http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php   quotes Penrose:

Quote
Yet even this example of precision-tuning is completely eclipsed by what is perhaps the most mind-boggling example of all. Our universe is a universe in which entropy (a measure of disorder) is increasing; a fact which is enshrined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Eminent mathematician Sir Roger Penrose writes: ‘Try to imagine the phase space... 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… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on 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. But in order to start off the universe in a 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?’

His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power 10123, that is 1 followed by 10123 zeros, a ‘number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe there would not even be enough particles to do the job.’[5]

As a "Chrietian apologist" (Wiki's description) Lennox may sort of leave christians feeing thzt Penrose, merely by using the word "Creator," approves of such an entity, whereas an atheist might think otherwise.

[Ambiguity edited out of last sentence.]
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 02:23:09 PM by Dave »
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Arturo

  • Do Something Crazy!
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3023
  • Gender: Male
  • Atheist, Humanist, and Champion
    • Arturo The1  リ壱
I'm not reading this.

     It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 30147
  • Gender: Male
I'm not reading this.
You must have started to know you wouldn't :D
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.