The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[uppi]

Do we accept action at a distance though? As far as I know it still causes some scratching of heads. How does gravity act at a distance? Don't people still look for some exchange of material (gravitons, or whatever - I don't know) to explain it?

Whether there is action at a distance depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, meaning that the short answer is: we do not know. However, if there is action at a distance, it cannot be used to transmit information. So for practical purposes the answer is no.

Gravity is theorized to not act at a distance and its field is supposed to be travelling at the speed of light. This results in the prediction of gravitational waves, but have no direct evidence for them yet.

We have gravitons, which are 'things' after a fashion (at that level, the difference between particles, being things, and waves, being disturbances in other things, is usually academical and unknowable) - but then there's quantum entanglement, which is extremely confusing.

Gravitons are just a conjecture so far. Whether the gravitational field is quantized (i.e. has gravitons) or not is one of the big question in physics.

 

[Perfection]

Do we accept action at a distance though? As far as I know it still causes some scratching of heads. How does gravity act at a distance? Don't people still look for some exchange of material (gravitons, or whatever - I don't know) to explain it?

Relativity does not have action at a distance.

Whether you believe in action at a distance mostly depends on your interpretation of QM these days. Copenhagen has action at a distance, but multiple worlds (which I favor) does not.

Edit: uppi, I don't like you.

 

[Cheetah]

We have gravitons, which are 'things' after a fashion (at that level, the difference between particles, being things, and waves, being disturbances in other things, is usually academical and unknowable)

Gravitons are just a hypothis for now. We don't actually know if they exit.

So? I'd rather work with something well-defined than something you can observe but changes based on each person's individual interpretation, like, an apple. How small can you cut an apple before it's no longer an apple?

I'm drunk, so don't take my method for absolute divine revelation, but:

The U.S. Department of agriculture defines a typical apple serving as 242 grams, where 100 grams should contain 2.2 μg of Vitamin K (that's the smallest part of the apple I found from a quick look at wikpedia).

Thus: You can cut a typical apple 25 times before you run out of enough evidence to identify it as an apple, drunk me believs.

A lot of people seem to regard natural numbers as somehow more real than imaginary numbers. They're both just well-defined abstract objects that can be used as in a model for reality, or not. Can you really observe the number 4? Or do you just see a bunch of molecules, organize it into objects, and use an expression that represents the number of distinct objects you choose to identify? 4 is just as abstract and as unobservable as i.

You're counting groups then, and concluding that your set contains four groups. Nothing imaginery abou it.

 

[Cheetah]

Philsepphers usually do <NOT A BAD WOR! REALLY!> (I like Poltinus though).

 

[Funky]

It does not say that you can own people as property.

"You may buy slaves"

Can you show proof in the Bible where it is that specific and graphic?

The bible's instructions on how to keep slaves which I refered to in my post are found in Leviticus 21 and 25, Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15. There are many more passages that support slavery scattered throughout the book (especially in the old testament, but also in the new).

Even if I were to say that it is a guideline for my life, you honestly think that I would carry out every thing that every human did in it?

I seriously hope not! Happily most Christians ignore most of the bible nowadays, thanks to their religion being battered down by centuries of secular moral progress. Brides are no longer stoned for not being virgins, women are no longer burnt for witchcraft. That is a good thing! Unfortunately, there is still a lot of nonsense in the bible that is still virulent today which holds up moral progress. Too many people still think that being gay is a sin, or are opposed to stem cell research or contraception, because of what their holy book says.

Yes; because in today's economy, the government and employers actually by contract own you.

That is nonsense. Neither the government nor our employers own us, at least not in any Western society.

I am not sure its a good idea to throw philosophy (and ethics/spirituality) out of window so easily.

I'm not throwing anything out of the window, least of all ethics or spirituality. I consider both ethics and spirituality to be the two most important endeavours in our lives. I also consider them to be areas of science, at least potentially, which means they can be discussed and examined rationally without having to accept anything on bad evidence.

The value of philosophy lies in it being able to ask questions. The answers however can only be given by science, i.e. by the unbiased study and evaluation of the matter in hand.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I'm not throwing anything out of the window, least of all ethics or spirituality. I consider both ethics and spirituality to be the two most important endeavours in our lives. I also consider them to be areas of science, at least potentially, which means they can be discussed and examined rationally without having to accept anything on bad evidence.

The value of philosophy lies in it being able to ask questions. The answers however can only be given by science, i.e. by the unbiased study and evaluation of the matter in hand.

excellent. Just like there is a philosophy of science there has to be scientific/exprimental approach to spirituality. Dogmatic beliefs in either field is bound to be our downfall.

 

[Plotinus]

Too many people still think that being gay is a sin, or are opposed to stem cell research or contraception, because of what their holy book says.

To be fair, the Bible says nothing about either stem cell research or contraception. Christians who oppose those things typically don't do so on the basis of the Bible.

I also consider them to be areas of science, at least potentially, which means they can be discussed and examined rationally without having to accept anything on bad evidence.

The value of philosophy lies in it being able to ask questions. The answers however can only be given by science, i.e. by the unbiased study and evaluation of the matter in hand.

I think your definition of "science" is too broad. Unbiased study and evaluation, and rational discussion and examination without accepting bad evidence, sounds to me like a very good definition of philosophy in general. Science is part of that endeavour but not all of it. Your own example of ethics supports this: we can discuss rationally whether a certain action is morally right or wrong, but there's no experiment you can do to indicate one or the other. It's philosophy, not science.

 

[Funky]

Christians who oppose those things typically don't do so on the basis of the Bible.

I disagree. In Christian theology the soul enters the zygot at the moment of conception. Therefore it is assumed that tiny collections of cells possess souls, which cannot be pit against the souls of victims of parkinson, full-body burns etc., who would benefit greatly by stem cell research.
The bible also says that God is offended by the waste of sperm, which constitutes a direct link to the opposition of condomes.

I think your definition of "science" is too broad. Unbiased study and evaluation, and rational discussion and examination without accepting bad evidence, sounds to me like a very good definition of philosophy in general. Science is part of that endeavour but not all of it. Your own example of ethics supports this: we can discuss rationally whether a certain action is morally right or wrong, but there's no experiment you can do to indicate one or the other. It's philosophy, not science.

Admittedly, my definition of science is indeed a broad one. I wouldn't even necessarily exclude philosophy from scientific discourse, though I don't place much value on philosophy alone.
Regarding ethics, if we grant that a discussion about what is moral must relate to how to increase human well-being and avoid suffering, then we can use science to examine how to achieve these goals. This would naturally include a wide range of our scientific knowledge, from neurology and psychology to sociology and economics.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's nothing in the Bible about zygotes. The idea that the embryo is a significant moment (morally) is the application of some fairly instinctive heuristics. Now, I think I'll disagree with Plot about contraception. The Catholics have built upon it, using modern knowledge, but it really looks like Onanism is at the root of much of this

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I disagree. In Christian theology the soul enters the zygot at the moment of conception. Therefore it is assumed that tiny collections of cells possess souls, which cannot be pit against the souls of victims of parkinson, full-body burns etc., who would benefit greatly by stem cell research.
The bible also says that God is offended by the waste of sperm, which constitutes a direct link to the opposition of condomes.

But this assumption isnt based on anything in Bible. My sources say that the soul can enter the body as late as couple hours after the baby has been born....

Also I am interested where in Bible is said something about waste of sperm?
With every heart-beat our body is producing thousand of new sperm cells. Thats quite a challange if you dont want them to come to waste plus the sperm race itself could be viewed as an example of waste...
My guess is that the issue isnt about wasting of sperm but rather through living a controlled life to try not to waste you basic life energies.

 

[Funky]

There's nothing in the Bible about zygotes.

Well obviously the people who wrote the bible had no clue about zygotes. The parts of the bible opponents of stem cell research allude to are Psalms 51 and 139, and Jeremiah 1:5. Though I agree the passages are somewhat vague.

Also I am interested where in Bible is said something about waste of sperm?

Genesis 38:1. I agree with you that given our advances in modern biology, it should be hard to maintain the Christian position.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, they're post-hoc rationalizations using the Bible. If they'd wanted to choose other developmental timepoints, they'd be able to find them in the Bible.

 

[Borachio]

But if they're post hoc rationalizations, what's the reason for their opposition to developments?

Is it just neophobia, plain and simple?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Genesis 38:1. I agree with you that given our advances in modern biology, it should be hard to maintain the Christian position.

O.K. I just finished reading 38:1 and its really interesting how the Bible states clearly the double moral standards of its time.

Then Judah said to Onan, &#8220;Sleep with your brother&#8217;s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.&#8221; But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother&#8217;s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord&#8217;s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

I think what it says here isnt that God actually killed Onan but its just meant to point out certain faulty behaviour(according to the morals of its time) which is relevant to the main story-line. Kind of "writer/moralist licence" understandable in the context of written religious text.

 

[Flying Pig]

Gravitons are just a hypothis for now. We don't actually know if they exit.

Is that any less true of gravitons than it is of anything which we use to explain the fundamental physics of the world at large? That's an honest question.

 

[Cheetah]

The thing is that while we have a hypothesis of gravitons, we have no idea how to make an experiment to test the hypothesis (at least I haven't heard of any yet). Once we have a possible way to disprove the hypothesis, and start collecting some actual corroborating facts, we'll have a much firmer understanding, and hopefully a more validated hypothesis.

Eventually we'll have rerun the experiment several times, and preferably run other experiments to test other approaches, and then we'll properly move the hypothesis to a scientific theory - popularly called a fact.

Comparatively, we have very solid understandings of the electromagnetic force, natural evolution or radioactivity. They've been tested and verified so much that, while it is possible that we'll have to revise parts of our understanding, it is extremely unlikely that we'll ever have to abandon their theories.

 

[timtofly]

The bible's instructions on how to keep slaves which I refered to in my post are found in Leviticus 21 and 25, Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15. There are many more passages that support slavery scattered throughout the book (especially in the old testament, but also in the new).

I read those 4 examples, and just not finding those specific claims you are making. The only thing I found was that if a daughter of the spiritual leader was a prostitute, she could be stoned, and the Hebrews were allowed to buy foreigners as slaves, and never free them if they so desired. It was not even a command to do so, but it was a choice they could make. Until, I have some concrete evidence, I would say that it is humans who have taken a few passages and formed their own moral code. If the Bible advocates slavery, then it is somewhat vague, and the process was already in place, but there were guidelines on giving fellow Hebrews better treatment than a foreigner would receive.

For any one who advocates that the modern work force is a choice and the employer does not own the employee, then people should stop complaining about the 1% who have all the money.

 

[Borachio]

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Gn 9:25)

T. David Curp notes that this episode has been used to justify racialized slavery, since "Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham's descendents as black Africans"

Of course, before long someone is sure to point out that "slaves" in the Old Testament often refers to indentured* labourers (selling themselves into slavery usually because of debt), who were supposed to be released from bondage after six or seven years, or at the Jubilee if this happened earlier.

This only applied to Israelites, though.

Non-Israelite slaves could be enslaved indefinitely and were to be treated as inheritable property.

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#cite_note-39

But, hey! let's see some fundamentalist bible literalist perform their usual mental gymnastics to either persuade themselves that slavery in the OT didn't mean slavery, or that slavery isn't as bad as some people would have you believe.

*As if indentured servants weren't slaves! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

During the late 17th and early 18th centuries poor children from England and France were kidnapped and sold into indentured labor in the Caribbean for a minimum of five years, but most times their contracts were bought and sold repeatedly and some laborers never attained their freedom

 

[Plotinus]

Well obviously the people who wrote the bible had no clue about zygotes. The parts of the bible opponents of stem cell research allude to are Psalms 51 and 139, and Jeremiah 1:5. Though I agree the passages are somewhat vague.

Yes, but as others have said, those passages aren't about this topic at all. They're merely references to foetuses. Opponents of stem cell research may use these passages to support their position, but it's a huge leap from this to say either that the Bible takes a view on this matter or that those people have this view because of the Bible. Clearly they have this view for other reasons and then appeal to verses in the Bible that seem vaguely relevant in support of their view.

One might as well cite 3 John 2 in support of stem cell research. No-one really believes things of this nature as a result of reading the Bible.

Genesis 38:1. I agree with you that given our advances in modern biology, it should be hard to maintain the Christian position.

You mean, I think, Gen. 38:9. But here again, no-one is opposed to contraception because of that verse. The passage isn't about contraception. It's not even claiming that God doesn't like sperm to get wasted. Onan is condemned because he fails to provide his dead brother with a child, according to ancient Near Eastern practice. Of course people who are opposed to contraception for other reasons may cite this verse as a sort of support for their view, but no-one would read this passage with a neutral view and develop, as a consequence, the idea that contraception is wrong. Catholics mainly rationalise their rejection of contraception by reference to Aristotelian principles about human ends. (Not that kind of end.)

And of course there is no "Christian position" on this. Most Christians don't have a problem with contraception.

 

[PhroX]

I think I might've mentioned it before in one of the Theologian threads, but the interpretation of the whole Onan thing I was taught (by a CoE...minister? I always forget which term refers to priests of which denomination), was that the punishment wasn't so much about the specific thing Onan did (or didn't), but beacuse he disobeyed a direct order from God. So the moral of the story is less "don't waste sperm" or "make sure you get your sister-in-law pregnant" and more "do what God says or else"