The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Borachio]

^ Hmm.

That's the kind of standard line that evangelists trot out. I'm come across it many times before.

To be honest, I'm not happy about it. It's too much about "if you're not with us, you're against us", and doesn't seem to make any efforts towards inclusivity, imo.

Now, I'm as inclusive as it's possible to be, I like to think. And if you choose not be my friend because you think I don't agree with you, well, that's your choice.

I see no reason to trust to the power of prayer, either.

There was that study into the health of the UK's Royal Family in the C19th, whose health was the subject of the weekly prayers of several million British citizens every Sunday. The study revealed that their health was no better nor worse than anyone of comparable wealth who was not such a subject.

Also, an omniscient deity surely doesn't need to be told what its minions require. And "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?".

 

[Tigranes]

^ Hmm.

That's the kind of standard line that evangelists trot out. I'm come across it many times before.

Does "matter precedes thought" or "thought precedes matter" sound like standard lines as well? People cannot agree in everything and cannot disagree in everything.

Consider the following postulate:

The state of a quantum mechanical system is completely specified by a (complex) function, that depends on the coordinates of the particle(s) and on time. This function, called the wave function or state function.

Can you ever prove the existence of wave function? Or even prove that Sqrt(-1) exist? According to quantum mechanics, what we can observe about the world is only a tiny subset of what actually exists. And this is only true about material world. A world that had a beginning. A world that did not exist forever, but only measly 13.7 billion years. But something does not come from nothing. If you think otherwise -- you need to bring a reasonable example. And don't quote snowflakes, it is from a different opera.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, there are studies into whether prayer has any effect. They show that being prayed for makes no difference, but knowing that you're being prayed for seems to have an effect. (What that effect is varies - the linked-to study found that it actually made people worse!) In other words, prayer seems to be a placebo.

 

[Borachio]

Bot something does not come from nothing

I don't have a clue. (Oops. I've said that to you before. But it's still accurate, imo.)

One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short to observe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

The point is, I think (though naturally I don't know), is that the Universe isn't as deterministic as we sometimes like to imagine.

Stochastic is a word I like to throw in the mix at some stage in these sorts of conversations. (Not that I know what it means, of course, but there you are. Maybe I just like the sound of it.)

 

[Tigranes]

It's too much about "if you're not with us, you're against us", and doesn't seem to make any efforts towards inclusivity, imo.

Just the opposite. It say if you are not against us you are for us, but if you are not with HIM, you are against Him. You don't have to follow Christians, it is all about your personal relationship with the God who became man in order to pay for your sins.

 

[Borachio]

Alright.

I'll rephrase it: "if you don't agree with what we say about this issue, then you're doomed* - because what we're saying is true".

*"and not only that, we're not going to have anything to do with you" (which, to my great surprise, an evangelically-minded individual did say to me one time)

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, there are studies into whether prayer has any effect. They show that being prayed for makes no difference, but knowing that you're being prayed for seems to have an effect. (What that effect is varies - the linked-to study found that it actually made people worse!) In other words, prayer seems to be a placebo.

Yeah, best evidence (right now) is that offering to pray for a cardiac patient has a good chance of hurting them. If a nurse offered to pray for a loved one, I'd be pretty mad.

 

[Funky]

@Tigranes:

Thanks again for your answers. I appreciate you taking the time to write such extensive replies to my questions. That having been said, I too am kind of at a loss what to make of these answers.

I asked fairly clear-cut questions. For example, whether the bible supports slavery. You kind of answered it by saying that slavery, murder, rape and violence were a result of humans giving earth to the enemy (whatever that means). But my question was much simpler - does the bible support slavery? It's really a yes or no question. If the answer is yes - and I don't see how it couldn't be, considering it gives instructions who you may keep as slaves, for how long, and how hard you can beat them - then the next question would be whether you think keeping human beings as property is moral. If it isn't - and I hope you would agree it's not! - then why does the bible advocate it? Couldn't God, when he gave Moses the 10 commandments, have ditched the bit about the graven images and instead have included "Don't keep slaves"? Wouldn't that upgrade the moral wisdom of the bible just a notch?

My second question was just as simple. Do I, in your opinion, deserve to go to hell? I don't accept Jesus, I'm doubtful whether he even existed. Your bible says I deserve to go to hell for that. Do you agree? Again, it's really a yes or no question.


Completely unrelated, but to also just touch on a part of your reply to Borachio, you said:

But something does not come from nothing. If you think otherwise -- you need to bring a reasonable example.

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. You are making a claim, that something cannot come from nothing. It is up to you to prove this to us, by demonstrating that it's true. I don't know how you'd do that, since you'd need a "nothing" to examine in order to show that "something" cannot come from it. But we certainly don't have to prove that something can come from nothing to reject the claim. Until we can demonstrate that something can or cannot come from nothing, the only reasonable answer is "I don't know".

 

[uppi]

The state of a quantum mechanical system is completely specified by a (complex) function, that depends on the coordinates of the particle(s) and on time. This function, called the wave function or state function.

Can you ever prove the existence of wave function?

That is the big question in research on the foundations of quantum mechanics. However the validity of this question immediately invalidates the next statement:

According to quantum mechanics, what we can observe about the world is only a tiny subset of what actually exists.

No. That is not a statement of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics only states how to calculate the result of a measurement. It does not make any statement whether the objects used to make these calculations (does not need to be a wave function, you can do quantum mechanics completely without wave functions) are real or not. There are interpretations that make such statements and there are very popular interpretations that state the wave functions are not real, but merely represent our knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about a system. In those interpretations, there is nothing more that actually exists beyond what we can observe. These interpretations are all compatible with quantum mechanics, so we cannot tell the difference (yet?). So your statement is wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm actually okay with what his phrase means, if we interpret it colloquially. I mean, I'm happy to admit there are many components of the universe that I can only infer through experimental results.

 

[Tigranes]

So your statement is wrong.

It is not my statement. It is Dr. Carroll's. He is an atheist, by the way. But source is irrelevant. It is a common quantum sense. In the classical world, it might be difficult to obtain a precise measurement of some quantity; we need to be very careful not to disturb the system we're looking at. But there is nothing in classical physics that prevents us from being careful. In quantum mechanics, on the other hand, there is an unavoidable obstacle to making complete and nondisruptive observations of a physical system. It simply can't be done, in general.

 

[uppi]

I'm actually okay with what his phrase means, if we interpret it colloquially. I mean, I'm happy to admit there are many components of the universe that I can only infer through experimental results.

Yes, but mostly for practical reasons. Those are completely unrelated to quantum mechanics.

It is a common quantum sense. In the classical world, it might be difficult to obtain a precise measurement of some quantity; we need to be very careful not to disturb the system we're looking at. But there is nothing in classical physics that prevents us from being careful. In quantum mechanics, on the other hand, there is an unavoidable obstacle to making complete and nondisruptive observations of a physical system. It simply can't be done, in general.

You are assuming that a quantum state exists, independent of its observation. In epistemic interpretations of the wave functions, this is not the case.

Common sense and quantum mechanics are mutually exclusive.

 

[Tigranes]

You are assuming that a quantum state exists, independent of its observation. In epistemic interpretations of the wave functions, this is not the case.

Common sense and quantum mechanics are mutually exclusive.

Did I say common sense? I said quantum common sense. In common sense your fly is either up or down. In quantum common sense the spin is in the undetectable state of superposition.

I do not want to go into less quantum common sense interpretations discussions. The moment you say "wave function" or use imaginary number anywhere in your mathematical apparatus -- you work with something you cannot observe. We better keep this discussion on topic, otherwise you can open a new thread about the most embarrassing graph in modern physics:

 

[El_Machinae]

You know, now that I'm older, I totally boggle at the callousness held by the faiths that justify eternal torment.

You can see why various subsets of those faiths have slowly excised out the idea of eternal torment.

 

[Tigranes]

@Tigranes:

Thanks again for your answers. I appreciate you taking the time to write such extensive replies to my questions. That having been said, I too am kind of at a loss what to make of these answers.

I am not sure how careful you read my answers. I give you not just yes or no, but "yes, because" and "no, because". In its infancy Christianity became known as "a religion of slaves." -- how can Bible possibly support slavery? Also who am I to have opinion about your place in heaven or hell? I kindly sent you to sort those question with the One who has the keys from the hell and the death.

And there are no burdens of proof, just pure common sense, self-evident reality that something does not come out of nothing, even quantum vacuum exists in space, but space itself was not around forever and was created.

Finally, when you talk about "we don't know" -- what can you possibly do about it? Which of the 3 methods can we use if we don't know where you from, for example? We can use experiment -- ask admin for your IP address and visit all the physical locations associated with that IP, but I doubt it will be practical. Or we can analyse all your posts trying to derive your location. Or we can ask you directly -- and just believe you, because we feel you are trustworthy. Such is the nature of faith -- it is a category of heart, not mind. "My sheep hear my voice". What do you hear, Funky? Have you ever trusted anyone? Tell me a story please.

 

[Perfection]

And there are no burdens of proof, just pure common sense, self-evident reality that something does not come out of nothing, even quantum vacuum exists in space, but space itself was not around forever and was created.

You are being careless here. Time and causality does not necessarily work in a "common sense" way, it can be hard to get away from our everyday notions to investigate time.

If you presume space itself was caused by something that would seem to require something to exist before it, and that requires you to believe in time without space. One thing Einstein showed is space and time as we know it are inextricably linked, so when you try to decouple the two, you run into issues.

Another thing to consider is radioactive decay. There is nothing that causes a nucleus to decay at such and such time, it happens randomly. That's a good example of how in physics, things don't necessarily need causes.

And, of course, the final problem I always have with these sorts of arguments is you're presuming God can have certain properties regarding time that other things can't.


Anyways did you read my earlier post? I am interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Funky]

Also who am I to have opinion about your place in heaven or hell?

That's not what I asked. Do you think I deserve to go to hell? Say I die, I still haven't accepted Jesus as my saviour, and God sends me to hell. Do you think that I deserve this punishment. I want to know what your personal opinion is.

And there are no burdens of proof, just pure common sense, self-evident reality that something does not come out of nothing, even quantum vacuum exists in space, but space itself was not around forever and was created.

If you make a claim, the burden of proof lies on you. Refering to common sense is not getting us anywhere when discussing the physical extremes at the beginning of the universe.

Finally, when you talk about "we don't know" -- what can you possibly do about it?

I don't know.

And I don't have to do anything about it, since I'm not making the claim.

Or we can ask you directly -- and just believe you, because we feel you are trustworthy. Such is the nature of faith -- it is a category of heart, not mind. "My sheep hear my voice". What do you hear, Funky? Have you ever trusted anyone? Tell me a story please.

My heart pumps blood, I don't know what yours is up to. Apart from that, the amount of trust I have is dependent on the claim in question. If you tell me you have 2 cats and live in a house, I'd probably believe you. If you say you have 2 dragons and live in a castle, I probably wouldn't. Likewise, if you say you know that something can't come from nothing, and thereby know more about the universe than any physicist on the planet, I'd be tempted to be skeptical.

The easiest people to fool are ourselves. Surely you'd agree that the guy who hears voices from aliens in his head, or the woman who heard God tell her to drown her babies and proceeded to do so, were hallucinating, no?

 

[El_Machinae]

Perfy, why would you say that a nucleus decay is uncaused? Surely it's more proper to say that it appears to happen randomly to us?

 

[timtofly]

@Funky

What is the deal with slavery? The Bible does not advocate anything. The Bible is just a written account of humans interacting with other humans and God. In modern terms, taxes and interest on loans is a type of slavery. Do you advocate paying taxes and interest?

@ Perfection

Time is just objects in motion and their relationship to that motion. The only way to remove time is to stop motion. What would happen if all photons were removed from the universe?

 

[Funky]

@Funky

What is the deal with slavery? The Bible does not advocate anything.

The bible clearly says you can own people as property. It gives detailed instructions who you can enslave and how long. Hebrew slaves for example remain their master's property for six years, after which they can be released. If the slave is married and has children, his wife and children will remain with his master forever.
Foreign slaves are in an even worse position, the bible says you can keep them as long as you want, and pierce a ring through their ear to show they belong to you.
It also gives detailed instructions on how to treat slaves. For example you are not allowed to beat them so hard that they die in three days. If they die five days after the beating, no problem.
There is no punishment whatsoever for masters raping their female slaves. Unless she is married - then the female slave will get whipped as a punishment.

This, and much more hideous barbaric nonsense on the topic of slavery is all spelled out explicitly in your holy book. I recommend you pick it up and read it!

In modern terms, taxes and interest on loans is a type of slavery. Do you advocate paying taxes and interest?

You are not seriously equating owning human beings as property with paying taxes or interest on loans, are you? With all due respect, you really don't want to go there. Don't you think it's rather telling that you have to come up with such utterly ridiculous comparisons to rationalize the barbarism in the bible?