LMAO! :}
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
LMAO! :}
I dunno. Why do some claim God does not exist....?
when a claim is made shouldn't you have a firm grasp or definition of what your claiming? and shouldn't you be prepared to define & defend such claim with proof, evidence and fact? not just God but anything, right? but esp "god (because extraordinary claim requires extra evidence) is it just me or is this God claim shit vague?
It's pretty basic scientific method. Pragmatic epistemology that is logically consistent, rests on reasonable axioms, and has a proven track record of results. Surely in 2011, centuries after the Enlightenment, this doesn't need explaining.
What's your proposed alternative method for belief-formation? If you have a superior epistemology, the whole world is waiting to hear it, and you'll get various accolades and be judged one of history's most innovative thinkers.
Any epistemology can be entirely false - that is just as true for assuming that, jelly beans or the Yeti have to conform to your epistemology, as assuming that a concept of god does. So that argument applies equally to all attempts at belief formation - it's a limitation of all knowledge-seeking, and applies to the entire universe, not just god.
The concept of god can be whatever the believer in question is proposing. Whatever conception someone puts forward, we can apply the same tests for reasonability of belief in its existence.
I never said god requires any criteria of evidence to exist, that would be silly. A being either exists or it doesn't, regardless of our beliefs about him/her/it. It is quite possible for there to be no evidence at all that god exists, and yet for him - or indeed for thousands of gods - to exist.
That is not the question at hand, because we are not omniscient, we don't have all the evidence - and in the absence of omniscience, it is difficult or impossible to prove that a being does not exist. The question then, given our limited knowledge, is what it is rational to believe. A cursory survey of various ludicrous beliefs throughout history, resting on lack of any supporting evidence, should be enough to show that it is irrational, and very unreliable, to believe in the existence of things, when there is no supporting evidence that they in fact exist.
That is all that matters. "Is there a god" is a silly question, because in the absence of evidence, we have no way of knowing. A better question is "Is it rational to believe in god, when there is no evidence that he exists". The track record of beliefs, and different approaches to epistemology, show that believing in something when there is no evidence, is pretty darn irrational and unreliable. Therefore, it makes little if any sense to believe in god if there is no credible evidence to show he exists.
If you want to overturn several millenia of proven results from the epistemology of sceptical empiricism (which developed into the scientific method), then you need to provide some pretty compelling reasons to abandon it in favour of your proposed alternative. Let's hear those reasons, and the alleged superior method you are proposing!
but cutten....
here is evidence...
these quotes are from a website by a Dr. Schroeder a former physics teacher at MIT and author of 60 publications in peer reviewed articles.
some quotes from his website - explaining fine tuning are put here... but he has a wealth of information on his website.
Frankly... I can't believe anybody acts like there is no evidence of a Creator... there is a ton of evidence.... it may not be conclusive... but what would be?
"...
2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universeâand we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measureâwe should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newtonâs, Maxwellâs, Einsteinâs) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/
here is evidence...
these quotes are from a website by a Dr. Schroeder a former physics teacher at MIT and author of 60 publications in peer reviewed articles.
some quotes from his website - explaining fine tuning are put here... but he has a wealth of information on his website.
Frankly... I can't believe anybody acts like there is no evidence of a Creator... there is a ton of evidence.... it may not be conclusive... but what would be?
"...
2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universeâand we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measureâwe should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newtonâs, Maxwellâs, Einsteinâs) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/
and for Stu who keeps lying and saying I mis quote people.
here is a former mit professor quoting weinberg and hawking.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/
In his best-selling book, âA Brief History of Timeâ, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the worldâs most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as âremarkable.â
âThe remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of lifeâ. âFor example,â Hawking writes, âif the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.â
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of âa divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)â (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of âGenesis and the Big Bangâ and âThe Science of Lifeâ was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal âScientific Americanâ, reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinbergâs wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuningâThe existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
here is a former mit professor quoting weinberg and hawking.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/
In his best-selling book, âA Brief History of Timeâ, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the worldâs most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as âremarkable.â
âThe remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of lifeâ. âFor example,â Hawking writes, âif the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.â
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of âa divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)â (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of âGenesis and the Big Bangâ and âThe Science of Lifeâ was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal âScientific Americanâ, reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinbergâs wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuningâThe existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
Quote from killthesunshine:
when a claim is made shouldn't you have a firm grasp or definition of what your claiming? and shouldn't you be prepared to define & defend such claim with proof, evidence and fact? not just God but anything, right? but esp "god (because extraordinary claim requires extra evidence) is it just me or is this God claim shit vague?
Well, that would apply equally to those who claim God exists (with Certainty) as well as those who claim God does NOT exist (with Certainty), since they are both referring to "God"....
I think this is a good overview (and makes my earlier point about requiring the equivalent of omniscience to state as "fact" the existence/non of God) - up until the point of "rationality".
Because, as we know, rationality can be subjective since it is bound within
1) Time
2) Perception through our senses (mechanically enhanced or natural)
At one point in Time, it was irrational to think man could walk on the moon (unless you are like some who believe we never did...)
At one point in Time, it was irrational to think solid objects were mostly empty space and made of unseen things called "atoms", and then "quarks", (super-strings?)...
The belief in a "Higher Being/God/Whatever" is ancient - more ancient than the scientific method. But is that belief to be trivialized BECAUSE of the scientific method? Much of science and art was inspired by such beliefs before such a method existed.
Perhaps the view of a belief in "God" is denigrated because the underlying (often unspoken) belief is that is it founded in fear. But what if it is not? (a scientific query...) What if its origin is inspired by something else?
Einstein believed in God, he just believed in an "impersonal God". Epicuris (in his "Is God unable to stop evil") was referring to a "personal God".
In the scientific method, you cannot prove a theory. There is always a possibility of being proven wrong - unless you stop looking. Which is fine when you reach that "omniscient" point and can hail The Death Of Science.
I do not understand.
If given the state of our science, you have scientists stating.... the unverse looks designed.
and I have just given you quotes from some top scientists talking about how incredible the tuning is...
how is that not some evidence for a Creation... as opposed to random formation?