Actually related to the last posts on the previous page.
rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/quick-notes-evangelical-startups-super.html
Inferno aka "Pagan" is well behind the times: the arguments cited (being old) have been superceded by the arguments presented - based on the additional knowledge gained in the interrim - by current physicists like Hawking and Cox. Not all of their arguments are based on string theorising - note well - but are largely founded on fields of physics that have significantly given proof of themselves. The multiple universes theory is not a product of String Theory. As I said: even regular quantum physics already gave rise to the view (and with reason) of the likelihood of multiple universes, and well before String Theory chose to develop on the theme. Nor is the theory that 'there are other universes out there where other physical laws may govern' a product of String Theory. (String Theory's objectionable novelty was the possibility of "just about anything you can imagine" existing in at least one universe somewhere out there. I.e. the kind of view that gives rise to arguments like how there can be a universe out there with jeebusjehovallah/the pink unicorn/the flying spaghetti monster as creator gawd. Still, anything is possible *I suppose* - the usual argument from hand-waving/prove me wrong - except that the important fact remains: that jeebus still never existed in this universe and no biblical creator gawd either.)
As several physicists have argued from standard physics, physics supports the notion of the existence of an unknown number of other universes out there where the laws of physics are often very likely to be radically different: e.g. where gravity cannot be, or where the other forces known to us cannot be, or are of such values as to mutually interfere/make the evolution of the universe impossible, and which cause the universe to collapse at birth or before any stars have formed etc etc. That is, all kinds of possibilities of how matters can be different and not produce the same results/"sequence" of events seen in our universe. And there could be universes where many of the initial stages of a similar cosmic evolution may have come to pass, but where something caused later stages to fail or turn out differently such that life cannot exist there (c.f. how life cannot exist past the era of the stars in our universe; the timeframe within our universe for any life to exist is minute: only as long as the stars are. Once the stars are gone, there is an *ocean* of time where no life can be, followed by the point after which nothing can happen ever again in our universe/end of Time - as per a currently commonly-held view of our universe).
As IIRC Hawking and others argued, it is therefore the very fact that our universe has intelligent life - i.e. our life, our consciousness, as example - that we are even able to ponder our universe and start to imagine the uniqueness/miracle of it. It is *we*, who have had the chance to evolve to exist in this universe - this universe where the particular (peculiar?) laws of our universe have made our particular existence possible - that look back on said peculiarities of our universe wherein our life/consciousness was made possible, and then (with typical self-aggrandising paranoia) conclude that it was all a "great miracle" or a conspiracy of "gawd did it". But even if we/our universe wherein life can exist had but one in a 1 to the nth of chance to exist, it is hypothesized that there are still more than n universes where life may not have been possible, and possibly an order of magnitude more universes still, a few of which wherein life would be possible and often would exist. None of this argues for the necessity of Gods, forget obviously invented "gawd" mono-entities of the recently made-up religions.
Therefore, Indians should refrain from spouting outdated scientific opinions, especially when these are parroted by new agey AmriKKKan 'journalists' or those AmriKKKans who are actually trying to sneakily introduce the biblical gawd by claiming that earlier physicists couldn't explain it all away and therefore suspected a "creator" behind it all. And, AmriKKKans are kept stupid: as I recall, even in the version of Hawking's arguments that was made for TV, the very episode where Hawking argued against god is the one that was made hard for the public to even access. And in the DVD version, Discovery or History Channel (or one might be a subsidiary of the other) even appended a segment unbeknownst to and unendorsed by Hawking where christoislamics were given the last word and argued that their invisible mono-gawd did exist and did it all anyway, even though the babble-koran has no conception of physics or our universe and is so obviously man-made by ignorants.
Further, life can easily be argued to be a *natural and actually unavoidable* consequence of the evolution of our universe (the evolution of life on our planet is a subset of that; and it is highly suspected that the laws of evolution of life on our planet are at least a subset of those that govern the evolution of life on any planets in our universe) - which is itself a product of the physical laws governing our universe. This is well-covered by Cox. Life - as defined by science - is a (bio)chemical process. And, as scientists say, where there is water and rocky terrain rich in minerals, the biochemists are convinced that life is a natural and unavoidable corollary. And this is just life as we know it. There may be other kinds of ... "life". And who knows what may exist beyond our universe. And what forms of sentience may be possible and actually exist. I have yet to see a valid argument for a creator "gawd" entity that science cannot explain away. Certainly, Inferno/'pagan' has cited none that current physicists have NOT explained away very well.
Hawking's famous comment - that humans are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet (but that we are fortunate enough to understand the universe) - can be extrapolated: that just as life need not exist on every planet of our universe (or even our solar system, as far as we know at present), likewise one can suspect that life or some form of sentience need not be possible in every universe, but there may be universes that coincidentally evolve in such a manner as to make life or some form of sentience possible (and that in some of these universes, life is further an actuality). And this is exactly what Hawking (and many another hardcore western physicist) has argued for about our universe at least: that it is the Pure Coincidence of the laws of physics in our universe being conducive to life that have consequently led to life in our universe (whereas laws of physics in any number of other universes need not have been). I.e. Pure Coincidence. No introduction of extra variables like creator entities.
Look, I'm not arguing for atheism here. But scientific atheism has very valid arguments for why "there need not be and therefore very probably isn't any (ockam's razor)" gawd entity. I agree entirely with the atheist arguments. Such arguments are true to all publicly visible, measurable/empirical and generally-known facts. (And yet the heathen Gods are real. But because the atheist viewpoint is valid to what can be generally known, heathens don't impose their religion on atheist viewpoints. Heathenisms are not universal religions and hence not missionary. They're ethnic, but specifically for those of the ethnic group who are innately prone to their ancestral heathenism. There's no point "convincing" other people of heathen Gods. People who adhere to ancestral tradition and have unsubverted views - i.e. heathens - who practice their tradition and ritual practices, can thereby always prove these matters for themselves, as they're private matters anyway.)
Invisible monogawd inventions are all a fraud, and a known fraud besides, so I'll stop wasting more words on that.
The Gods of the heathenisms are to be known. They will not be known by science, I more than merely suspect. <Leaving out a lot of further monologuing that I'd typed out.>
rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/quick-notes-evangelical-startups-super.html
Quote:ââ¬Â¢Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God: Astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forcesââ¬âgravity, the electromagnetic force, and the ââ¬Åstrongââ¬Â and ââ¬Åweakââ¬Â nuclear forcesââ¬âwere determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fractionââ¬âby even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000ââ¬âthen no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universse existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all ââ¬Åjust happenedââ¬Â defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term ââ¬Åbig bang,ââ¬Â said that his atheism was ââ¬Ågreatly shakenââ¬Â at these developments. He later wrote that ââ¬Åa common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.ââ¬Â
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that ââ¬Åthe appearance of design is overwhelmingââ¬Â and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said ââ¬Åthe more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.ââ¬Â
Posted by Pagan at 12/27/2014 08:11:00 PM Labels: evangelical, Quick Notes, science
Reactions
Inferno aka "Pagan" is well behind the times: the arguments cited (being old) have been superceded by the arguments presented - based on the additional knowledge gained in the interrim - by current physicists like Hawking and Cox. Not all of their arguments are based on string theorising - note well - but are largely founded on fields of physics that have significantly given proof of themselves. The multiple universes theory is not a product of String Theory. As I said: even regular quantum physics already gave rise to the view (and with reason) of the likelihood of multiple universes, and well before String Theory chose to develop on the theme. Nor is the theory that 'there are other universes out there where other physical laws may govern' a product of String Theory. (String Theory's objectionable novelty was the possibility of "just about anything you can imagine" existing in at least one universe somewhere out there. I.e. the kind of view that gives rise to arguments like how there can be a universe out there with jeebusjehovallah/the pink unicorn/the flying spaghetti monster as creator gawd. Still, anything is possible *I suppose* - the usual argument from hand-waving/prove me wrong - except that the important fact remains: that jeebus still never existed in this universe and no biblical creator gawd either.)
As several physicists have argued from standard physics, physics supports the notion of the existence of an unknown number of other universes out there where the laws of physics are often very likely to be radically different: e.g. where gravity cannot be, or where the other forces known to us cannot be, or are of such values as to mutually interfere/make the evolution of the universe impossible, and which cause the universe to collapse at birth or before any stars have formed etc etc. That is, all kinds of possibilities of how matters can be different and not produce the same results/"sequence" of events seen in our universe. And there could be universes where many of the initial stages of a similar cosmic evolution may have come to pass, but where something caused later stages to fail or turn out differently such that life cannot exist there (c.f. how life cannot exist past the era of the stars in our universe; the timeframe within our universe for any life to exist is minute: only as long as the stars are. Once the stars are gone, there is an *ocean* of time where no life can be, followed by the point after which nothing can happen ever again in our universe/end of Time - as per a currently commonly-held view of our universe).
As IIRC Hawking and others argued, it is therefore the very fact that our universe has intelligent life - i.e. our life, our consciousness, as example - that we are even able to ponder our universe and start to imagine the uniqueness/miracle of it. It is *we*, who have had the chance to evolve to exist in this universe - this universe where the particular (peculiar?) laws of our universe have made our particular existence possible - that look back on said peculiarities of our universe wherein our life/consciousness was made possible, and then (with typical self-aggrandising paranoia) conclude that it was all a "great miracle" or a conspiracy of "gawd did it". But even if we/our universe wherein life can exist had but one in a 1 to the nth of chance to exist, it is hypothesized that there are still more than n universes where life may not have been possible, and possibly an order of magnitude more universes still, a few of which wherein life would be possible and often would exist. None of this argues for the necessity of Gods, forget obviously invented "gawd" mono-entities of the recently made-up religions.
Therefore, Indians should refrain from spouting outdated scientific opinions, especially when these are parroted by new agey AmriKKKan 'journalists' or those AmriKKKans who are actually trying to sneakily introduce the biblical gawd by claiming that earlier physicists couldn't explain it all away and therefore suspected a "creator" behind it all. And, AmriKKKans are kept stupid: as I recall, even in the version of Hawking's arguments that was made for TV, the very episode where Hawking argued against god is the one that was made hard for the public to even access. And in the DVD version, Discovery or History Channel (or one might be a subsidiary of the other) even appended a segment unbeknownst to and unendorsed by Hawking where christoislamics were given the last word and argued that their invisible mono-gawd did exist and did it all anyway, even though the babble-koran has no conception of physics or our universe and is so obviously man-made by ignorants.
Further, life can easily be argued to be a *natural and actually unavoidable* consequence of the evolution of our universe (the evolution of life on our planet is a subset of that; and it is highly suspected that the laws of evolution of life on our planet are at least a subset of those that govern the evolution of life on any planets in our universe) - which is itself a product of the physical laws governing our universe. This is well-covered by Cox. Life - as defined by science - is a (bio)chemical process. And, as scientists say, where there is water and rocky terrain rich in minerals, the biochemists are convinced that life is a natural and unavoidable corollary. And this is just life as we know it. There may be other kinds of ... "life". And who knows what may exist beyond our universe. And what forms of sentience may be possible and actually exist. I have yet to see a valid argument for a creator "gawd" entity that science cannot explain away. Certainly, Inferno/'pagan' has cited none that current physicists have NOT explained away very well.
Hawking's famous comment - that humans are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet (but that we are fortunate enough to understand the universe) - can be extrapolated: that just as life need not exist on every planet of our universe (or even our solar system, as far as we know at present), likewise one can suspect that life or some form of sentience need not be possible in every universe, but there may be universes that coincidentally evolve in such a manner as to make life or some form of sentience possible (and that in some of these universes, life is further an actuality). And this is exactly what Hawking (and many another hardcore western physicist) has argued for about our universe at least: that it is the Pure Coincidence of the laws of physics in our universe being conducive to life that have consequently led to life in our universe (whereas laws of physics in any number of other universes need not have been). I.e. Pure Coincidence. No introduction of extra variables like creator entities.
Look, I'm not arguing for atheism here. But scientific atheism has very valid arguments for why "there need not be and therefore very probably isn't any (ockam's razor)" gawd entity. I agree entirely with the atheist arguments. Such arguments are true to all publicly visible, measurable/empirical and generally-known facts. (And yet the heathen Gods are real. But because the atheist viewpoint is valid to what can be generally known, heathens don't impose their religion on atheist viewpoints. Heathenisms are not universal religions and hence not missionary. They're ethnic, but specifically for those of the ethnic group who are innately prone to their ancestral heathenism. There's no point "convincing" other people of heathen Gods. People who adhere to ancestral tradition and have unsubverted views - i.e. heathens - who practice their tradition and ritual practices, can thereby always prove these matters for themselves, as they're private matters anyway.)
Invisible monogawd inventions are all a fraud, and a known fraud besides, so I'll stop wasting more words on that.
The Gods of the heathenisms are to be known. They will not be known by science, I more than merely suspect. <Leaving out a lot of further monologuing that I'd typed out.>