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.
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.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/eqC2ZT8OCgmas/giphy.gif)
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".]
Quote from: JennieDar on May 20, 2018, 07:03:09 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Quote from: Dave on May 20, 2018, 08:27:27 AM
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.
So, in other words, there's a method to the madness?
Quote from: No one on May 20, 2018, 11:57:31 AM
So, in other words, there's a method to the madness?
Or is there a madness to the method?
Quote from: Recusant on May 20, 2018, 10:13:04 AM
Quote from: Dave on May 20, 2018, 08:27:27 AM
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.
The Penrose link can probably be traced back to
QuoteROGER 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
QuoteArguments 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:
QuoteThe 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?
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 [...]"
Quote from: Dave on May 20, 2018, 01:07:39 PM
The Penrose link can probably be traced back to
QuoteROGER 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
QuoteArguments 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:
QuoteThe 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
Quote from: Recusant on May 20, 2018, 01:10:05 PM
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!
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:
QuoteYet 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.]
I'm not reading this.
Quote from: Arturo on May 20, 2018, 08:59:42 PM
I'm not reading this.
You must have started to know you wouldn't :D
Perhaps JennieDar is busily actually writing a post in response to replies in this thread. She has logged in at least a couple of times and presumably seen those replies, but hasn't bothered to post anything. Ah well. In another thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15801.0) I've posted about recent speculations that are relevant to the "fine-tuning" hypothesis.
Quote from: Tank on May 20, 2018, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: Arturo on May 20, 2018, 08:59:42 PM
I'm not reading this.
You must have started to know you wouldn't :D
I'm sorry what did you say? I think I should be in the GOOF thread because my hearing sucks.
:hahaha...no:
Looks like a shit and run. Why do people bother?
Quote from: Tank on May 24, 2018, 06:28:32 AM
Looks like a shit and run. Why do people bother?
How long do you wait to decide its a "shit and run"? Or do you decide so on first scan?
Yeah, it had the symptoms, but can be good exercise to look around then shout, "PLAGIARISM!"
Quote from: Dave on May 24, 2018, 07:40:28 AM
Quote from: Tank on May 24, 2018, 06:28:32 AM
Looks like a shit and run. Why do people bother?
How long do you wait to decide its a "shit and run"? Or do you decide so on first scan?
Yeah, it had the symptoms, but can be good exercise to look around then shout, "PLAGIARISM!"
With a bit of experience you can spot a 'Shit and Run.' 80% of the time on the first post.
Quote from: Tank on May 24, 2018, 06:28:32 AM
Looks like a shit and run. Why do people bother?
So they can brag about having "left the atheists speechless with their logic". After all, if they never come back, for all they know it's true.
I don't have to point this out I'm sure. Religions don't operate with logic. Belief and logic are oft times enemies.
Quote from: Old Seer on May 27, 2018, 08:33:33 PM
I don't have to point this out I'm sure. Religions don't operate with logic. Belief and logic are oft times enemies.
Well, belief in supernatural influences that cannot, by any logical or scientific means, be substantiated - yeah! That the Sun will rise tomorrow morning is a statically logical belief. Whether of not we are here to see it depends on there not being an X-ray burster or supernova happening in our local bit of the galaxy during our local night. We won't see that 'til it hits us! An existinction-event asteroid would be spotted.
Whether or not I survive the night to see that sunrise personally has nothing to do with it, my belief will cease with my death but the universe will just trundle on regardless.
:grin:
Quote from: Sandra Craft on May 24, 2018, 11:31:13 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 24, 2018, 06:28:32 AM
Looks like a shit and run. Why do people bother?
So they can brag about having "left the atheists speechless with their logic". After all, if they never come back, for all they know it's true.
I am both annoyed and amused when a Shit and run person posts here. It is, for them. similar to going to a gun fight armed only with a stick.
Quote from: Icarus on May 27, 2018, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on May 24, 2018, 11:31:13 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 24, 2018, 06:28:32 AM
Looks like a shit and run. Why do people bother?
So they can brag about having "left the atheists speechless with their logic". After all, if they never come back, for all they know it's true.
I am both annoyed and amused when a Shit and run person posts here. It is, for them. similar to going to a gun fight armed only with a stick.
If it makes them feel better and they gtfo I don't care if they post a huge ugly penis on the forum.
Quote from: Icarus on May 27, 2018, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on May 24, 2018, 11:31:13 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 24, 2018, 06:28:32 AM
Looks like a shit and run. Why do people bother?
So they can brag about having "left the atheists speechless with their logic". After all, if they never come back, for all they know it's true.
I am both annoyed and amused when a Shit and run person posts here. It is, for them. similar to going to a gun fight armed only with a stick.
Or leaving a recording of themselves shouting at a rally they oppose.
QuoteThere are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists
I don't know why any one would have a problem with that statement.
I agree there are methods and here is one:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7694/17236872213_08b10f73f0_z.jpg)