by Terry 206 Replies latest watchtower bible
Thank you, PSacramento. I'm not making the connection, however. It sounds like, this is a constant, therefore God did it? It would make an interesting PhD thesis.
I'm with Thomas. Show me a bona fide miracle and I will believe again. Otherwise, not gonna happen. To paraphrase John 20:26-29, Naive are those who have not seen yet believe because they will believe whatever they are told to believe and they shall invariably be led astray.
PS -- there are generally two solutions.
First, is the constants really finely tuned? we dont know what the constants in nature really are, only the constants in the current theories (which we know are wrong). Also, i think you would be surpriced that many of the"constants" could be changed by quite a bit and still give reasonable universes.
Secondly, this presuppose there is only one universe. In some models of inflation, there has to be other universes (notice these models is not introduced to solve a fine-tuning problem, but to explain the microwave background). I personally find this more appealing in a sence. It seem strange our universe, born less than 14 billion years ago and allready well under way to tear itself apart, should be the only one (even if there is a God).
In this respect, it is often argued that such a solution is very unattractive because it introduce many other universes. i think its good to notice that fine-tuning arguments could have been made in the past about the earth, ie. its size and so on, but these were proven wrong because it turned out the universe was A LOT larger than we thought at the time, and earth-like planets are very likely common. In similar ways, other parts of the fine-tuning argument has been proven to not be a problem.
Finally: Consider the alternative: "God made it so". God could have made it IN ANY WAY HE WANTED (why should God have humans in mind?). its a very flexible explanation, not exactly a virtue amongst scientific theories...
Bohm,
There is as much evidence for God as for the theories that you mentioned, perhaps more so.
Multiple universe can, in some ways posiibly "explain" God as can mulitiple dimensions.
I admit that for every 'evidence" of God's existence there is a possible theory to counter it or explain it in another way and I don't have a problem with that at all.
I don't fall into the "God of the gaps" argument and to me, it is a combination of science and philosophy that "leads" me to believe in the God "hypothosis", but my belief in God and Christ go far beyond science and philosophy.
Psac: The problem here is that its not like we have two theories:
a) multiple-universes-flavored-inflation-model
b) God.
and they are on equal footing, because they are not: (a) is far more rigid, it can only explain relatively few universes and has predictive power (like no magnetic monopoles, no superheavy charged particles, certain patterns in the microwave background) while with (b), pretty much everything goes - he could have made the universe any way he wanted. Thats ultimately why i think fine-tuning argument is a quite poor one: God offer a very unattractive solution to it, while it looks like there is a good chance physics will give a much more attractive solution.
and they are on equal footing, because they are not: (a) is far more rigid, it can only explain relatively few universes and has predictive power (like no magnetic monopoles, no superheavy charged particles, certain patterns in the microwave background) while with (b), pretty much everything goes - he could have made the universe any way he wanted. Thats ultimately why i think fine-tuning argument is a quite poor one: God offer a very unattractive solution to it, while it looks like there is a good chance physics will give a much more attractive solution.
I think you are pre-supposing quiet qfew things when you say that God could have made the univers any way he wanted.
Perhaps the universe is the way it is because it can't be any other way.
You are saying that if we that the God option that pretty much anything goes, why is that? do you see evidence of that "pretty much anything goes" in the Universe?
Nope, we don't.
You say that God is an unattracive solution and yet, you postulate ( if that is the right word) a solution based on what then?
The discussions about Faith and Belief reminds me of the inability of Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson and Perry White to detect that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person.
WE CAN SEE IT IMMEDIATELY--but--they are clueless.
Why?
They aren't willing to believe that Clark is Superman.
All the visual clues are invisible to them.
We see what we expect to see according to how we think things are.
Incidentally, how many of Jesus' apostles were able to detect he was God?
Jesus really was a Superhero, wasn't he?? But, his secret identity as a Jewish Carpenter had everybody fooled.
Go figure.
Psac: "Perhaps the universe is the way it is because it can't be any other way."
i thought we were talking about the fine-tuning question? if this is the case, there is no problem?
I propose something like inflation as an alternative solution because it objectively is a better solution simply because of its intrinsic properties, ie. it make specific predictions about the universe which can be tested.
God does not do that. Saying: "the constants are the way they are because God tuned them" does not tell us anything about the universe, there is no way to really check it.
I propose something like inflation as an alternative solution because it objectively is a better solution simply because of its intrinsic properties, ie. it make specific predictions about the universe which can be tested.
So, you believe it a better solution because it can be tested?
psac: YES!
testable and less flexible. and does not rely on as many supernatural elements as God.
psac: YES!
testable and less flexible. and does not rely on as many supernatural elements as God.
So it conforms better to your system of belief in regards to how things are and should be.
I can respect that.
