It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

That's cool, you still present yourself as a zealot as far as I see it, sorry lol.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

That's cool, you still present yourself as a zealot as far as I see it, sorry lol.


How so and what supports this claim/insult.

I actually have about 10 u2u s from other agnostics saying different from this thread but if i can change my approach to be a more effective debater I am certainly willing to look at my own faults.
edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: clarity



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Tough luck.


*Edit*
Why would I want to invent something to defend?!


Not for me. I could care less. If you dont believe in anything thats your own choice and i support anyone thinking for themselves.


Not believing in something doesn't equate to not thinking for yourself. In fact, I would argue it says just the opposite.

"Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings" -Victor Stenger While obviously not a logic based rebuttal, it is nonetheless a truism.

The most consistent argument in favor of the Fine Tuning argument seems to be a variations of William Lane Craig's

"We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable? The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to
be incomprehensible and incalculable."

The problem with this argument is that it's built on faulty assumptions. There is no reason to believe that the constants are independent of each other. If the values of the constants depend on each other in some way, then it's erroneous to assume that they could have taken on a wide range of values. Furthermore, even if there is an apparent "fine-tuning," there is no reason to assume that a divine creator is the most likely (or even a likely) explanation, let alone the specific deities worshipped by any major religion. And many of the cited constants only explain the presence of carbon-based life, so the fine-tuning theory seems to rest on the faulty assumption that carbon-based life is the only possible type


"The most common fallacy... is to single out the carbon-based life we have on Earth and assume that it is the only possible type of life... However, with only one example available, they simply do not have the data to allow them to conclude that all other forms of life are impossible, whether based on carbon chemistry or not
-Stanger

The entire premise of this argument in favor of Fine Tuning rests on the Multiverse Hypothesis, which by its very nature, renders Fine Tunings argument even more moot as having an infinite number of universes to work from makes our own circumstances less special metaphysically and perfectly within the odds of reason mathematically. In effect, our universe isn't fine tuned to us, we are fine tuned to it.


Many constants, such as the cosmological constant and the expansion rate of the universe, could have been at least slightly different while still allowing for conditions that sustain life. Other constants, such as the ratio between protons and electrons, likely could not have been different, but can be explained by certain "reasonable expectations," such as the total electric charge of the universe summing to zero.
- Stanger



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Tough luck.


*Edit*
Why would I want to invent something to defend?!


Not for me. I could care less. If you dont believe in anything thats your own choice and i support anyone thinking for themselves.


Not believing in something doesn't equate to not thinking for yourself. In fact, I would argue it says just the opposite.

"Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings" -Victor Stenger While obviously not a logic based rebuttal, it is nonetheless a truism.

The most consistent argument in favor of the Fine Tuning argument seems to be a variations of William Lane Craig's

"We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable? The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to
be incomprehensible and incalculable."

The problem with this argument is that it's built on faulty assumptions. There is no reason to believe that the constants are independent of each other. If the values of the constants depend on each other in some way, then it's erroneous to assume that they could have taken on a wide range of values. Furthermore, even if there is an apparent "fine-tuning," there is no reason to assume that a divine creator is the most likely (or even a likely) explanation, let alone the specific deities worshipped by any major religion. And many of the cited constants only explain the presence of carbon-based life, so the fine-tuning theory seems to rest on the faulty assumption that carbon-based life is the only possible type


"The most common fallacy... is to single out the carbon-based life we have on Earth and assume that it is the only possible type of life... However, with only one example available, they simply do not have the data to allow them to conclude that all other forms of life are impossible, whether based on carbon chemistry or not
-Stanger

The entire premise of this argument in favor of Fine Tuning rests on the Multiverse Hypothesis, which by its very nature, renders Fine Tunings argument even more moot as having an infinite number of universes to work from makes our own circumstances less special metaphysically and perfectly within the odds of reason mathematically. In effect, our universe isn't fine tuned to us, we are fine tuned to it.


Many constants, such as the cosmological constant and the expansion rate of the universe, could have been at least slightly different while still allowing for conditions that sustain life. Other constants, such as the ratio between protons and electrons, likely could not have been different, but can be explained by certain "reasonable expectations," such as the total electric charge of the universe summing to zero.
- Stanger


I was saying the opposite. That he was thinking for himself.

I also if you read previous points say i am not promoting the ftu just that it is logical.

If you were to google debunking the multiverse you would find just as many non christian rebuttals including from mathmaticians like planck.

Just because a person has an arguement that is logical does not discredit a theory. The ftu has plenty of highly respected scientists not christian that have supported claims.

This is the trouble with google arguments a person finds one argument and assumes the debate is over.

If you dont find it a good arguement that is fine. I am not promoting the theory or believe whole heartedly in it. I even already said there are good rebuttals. However, the reference you made is not the most consistant arguement nor does the ftu rely on the multiverse. The multiverse is the rebuttal.
edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: edit


m.phys.org...

I think you were reffering to Victor Stenger not Stangar. He is the opposite of a christian zealot which to me isnt any better. Stenger has plenty of critics.

www.is-there-a-god.info...
edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: link



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
I was saying the opposite. That he was thinking for himself.

Ahhh... I misunderstood your point regarding thinking for one self. Thank you for clarifying that.

I also if you read previous points say i am not promoting the ftu just that it is logical.

Yes, I get that and have read the entire thread. I simply disagree with the premise. Logical doesn't equate with factual and even there I don't see a lot of logic in embracing a hypothesis that is essentially a marriage of science and philosophy with heavy emphasis on "God of the Gaps" Fallacy. There are some basic items in physics for which there is not a definitive answer for, such as WHY do these fundamental particles possess the specific values of mass that they have? Not knowing that and inserting a creator into the mix isn't logical at all. And it's not at all scientific. We're talking about a hypothesis here, not a theory. There's more testable evidence for abiogenesis than there is for FTU


If you were to google debunking the multiverse you would find just as many non christian rebuttals including from mathmaticians like planck.

Multiverse as an explanation, is just one suitable rebuttal to FTU hypothesis out of several. It's the one that makes the most sense to me but when you get down to brass tacks, I don't really need to go that far even. As it's barely an hypothesis, the onus is on proponents to prove the validity of it. It's not my job to provide falsifiable data. Until there is something tenable to support it, it's a pseudo scientific, philosophical response to a question that requires a scientific answer.

Just because a person has an arguement that is logical does not discredit a theory. The ftu has plenty of highly respected scientists not christian that have supported claims.

Nor does feeling that a hypothesis is logical make it a legitimate piece of science nor does disagreeing with a rebuttal lend credence or support to said hypothesis. Because that's what FTU is, a hypothesis, not a theory. The number of "highly respected scientists" in favor of this hypothesis is not anywhere near as large as you want to make it out to be. They are a rather small minority within their respective fields. Before you jump all over that, it doesn't make them automatically wrong to not be in accordance with the majority of individuals within their fields. I've been in that minority 20 years ago and today, what we worked on is considered a fact when back in 1997 our research was considered a dead end career wise and a folly. However, if the data doesn't come to fruition, they will still be in an ever decreasing minority. As it currently sits, there just isn't any real data to support this hypothetical view of the universe. Nor is there any more in favor of a multiverse when you get down to the data. But since data isn't a prerequisite here and it's all about what seems logical, to me, in the face of FTU, multiverse makes far more sense and is at least equitable to FTU in regards to a rebuttal. Just my opinion.

This is the trouble with google arguments a person finds one argument and assumes the debate is over.

I'm not assuming that the argument is over based on a 5 minute google search which seems to be your implication. I simply happened to be familiar with Stenger and his argument against FTU and used some of his statements to support my own position based on that familiarity with the argument against FTU. I don't think you mean to, but with statements like this, you come off as rather condescending towards people who are attempting to have a civil discussion by implying they are unfamiliar with an argument or position. Compared to your approach to others in this thread, the statement was fairly benign, but the implication is still there. I was simply being honest and citing quotes instead of claiming the words for myself and it comes off as a bit insulting that properly citing the source of quotations is taken is a disingenuous google search. Granted, I can't expect strangers on an internet forum to know my education and background or who my family members are and how that influences my knowledge, but at the same time, it would behoove you to not make illogical leaps of assumption when the basis of your posts in this thread lies, at least in part, on pointing out flaws in the logic of others arguments and positions. Not picking a fight, just offering a little food for thought.

If you dont find it a good arguement that is fine. I am not promoting the theory or believe whole heartedly in it. I even already said there are good rebuttals.


I get that you're kind of playing devils advocate with the FTU hypothesis, I was simply providing an opposing viewpoint that I personally, stand behind. The multiverse as a rebuttal lies in the argument posed by many proponents of FTU.


However, the reference you made is not the most consistant arguement nor does the ftu rely on the multiverse. The multiverse is the rebuttal.


What makes the argument inconsistent in your opinion?

I'm also not stating that FTU relies on multiverse, I gave it as a rebuttal and pointed out that a lot of people basing their world view on FTU do in fact subscribe to the multiverse hypothesis while ignoring the implications of it on FTU.


I think you were reffering to Victor Stenger not Stangar. He is the opposite of a christian zealot which to me isnt any better. Stenger has plenty of critics.


Sorry, it was a typo. Sure, he is an ardent proponent of Atheism and of disassociating religion(not just Christianity, all religion) from Science, Politics, Education etc... it doesn't make him wrong about the science though, which is the basis for his arguments. Much like you're not selling FTU, I'm not selling Stenger. I agree with his assertions but its for the individual to make up their own mind and engage in due diligence for themselves. I'm just demonstrating a starting point for anyone interested in a counter to the FTU hypothesis. It's a message board, I'm not writing a thesis. with limited space and attention spans there's little point of over saturating with data.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: luthier
I was saying the opposite. That he was thinking for himself.

Ahhh... I misunderstood your point regarding thinking for one self. Thank you for clarifying that.

I also if you read previous points say i am not promoting the ftu just that it is logical.

Yes, I get that and have read the entire thread. I simply disagree with the premise. Logical doesn't equate with factual and even there I don't see a lot of logic in embracing a hypothesis that is essentially a marriage of science and philosophy with heavy emphasis on "God of the Gaps" Fallacy. There are some basic items in physics for which there is not a definitive answer for, such as WHY do these fundamental particles possess the specific values of mass that they have? Not knowing that and inserting a creator into the mix isn't logical at all. And it's not at all scientific. We're talking about a hypothesis here, not a theory. There's more testable evidence for abiogenesis than there is for FTU


If you were to google debunking the multiverse you would find just as many non christian rebuttals including from mathmaticians like planck.

Multiverse as an explanation, is just one suitable rebuttal to FTU hypothesis out of several. It's the one that makes the most sense to me but when you get down to brass tacks, I don't really need to go that far even. As it's barely an hypothesis, the onus is on proponents to prove the validity of it. It's not my job to provide falsifiable data. Until there is something tenable to support it, it's a pseudo scientific, philosophical response to a question that requires a scientific answer.

Just because a person has an arguement that is logical does not discredit a theory. The ftu has plenty of highly respected scientists not christian that have supported claims.

Nor does feeling that a hypothesis is logical make it a legitimate piece of science nor does disagreeing with a rebuttal lend credence or support to said hypothesis. Because that's what FTU is, a hypothesis, not a theory. The number of "highly respected scientists" in favor of this hypothesis is not anywhere near as large as you want to make it out to be. They are a rather small minority within their respective fields. Before you jump all over that, it doesn't make them automatically wrong to not be in accordance with the majority of individuals within their fields. I've been in that minority 20 years ago and today, what we worked on is considered a fact when back in 1997 our research was considered a dead end career wise and a folly. However, if the data doesn't come to fruition, they will still be in an ever decreasing minority. As it currently sits, there just isn't any real data to support this hypothetical view of the universe. Nor is there any more in favor of a multiverse when you get down to the data. But since data isn't a prerequisite here and it's all about what seems logical, to me, in the face of FTU, multiverse makes far more sense and is at least equitable to FTU in regards to a rebuttal. Just my opinion.

This is the trouble with google arguments a person finds one argument and assumes the debate is over.

I'm not assuming that the argument is over based on a 5 minute google search which seems to be your implication. I simply happened to be familiar with Stenger and his argument against FTU and used some of his statements to support my own position based on that familiarity with the argument against FTU. I don't think you mean to, but with statements like this, you come off as rather condescending towards people who are attempting to have a civil discussion by implying they are unfamiliar with an argument or position. Compared to your approach to others in this thread, the statement was fairly benign, but the implication is still there. I was simply being honest and citing quotes instead of claiming the words for myself and it comes off as a bit insulting that properly citing the source of quotations is taken is a disingenuous google search. Granted, I can't expect strangers on an internet forum to know my education and background or who my family members are and how that influences my knowledge, but at the same time, it would behoove you to not make illogical leaps of assumption when the basis of your posts in this thread lies, at least in part, on pointing out flaws in the logic of others arguments and positions. Not picking a fight, just offering a little food for thought.

If you dont find it a good arguement that is fine. I am not promoting the theory or believe whole heartedly in it. I even already said there are good rebuttals.


I get that you're kind of playing devils advocate with the FTU hypothesis, I was simply providing an opposing viewpoint that I personally, stand behind. The multiverse as a rebuttal lies in the argument posed by many proponents of FTU.


However, the reference you made is not the most consistant arguement nor does the ftu rely on the multiverse. The multiverse is the rebuttal.


What makes the argument inconsistent in your opinion?

I'm also not stating that FTU relies on multiverse, I gave it as a rebuttal and pointed out that a lot of people basing their world view on FTU do in fact subscribe to the multiverse hypothesis while ignoring the implications of it on FTU.


I think you were reffering to Victor Stenger not Stangar. He is the opposite of a christian zealot which to me isnt any better. Stenger has plenty of critics.


Sorry, it was a typo. Sure, he is an ardent proponent of Atheism and of disassociating religion(not just Christianity, all religion) from Science, Politics, Education etc... it doesn't make him wrong about the science though, which is the basis for his arguments. Much like you're not selling FTU, I'm not selling Stenger. I agree with his assertions but its for the individual to make up their own mind and engage in due diligence for themselves. I'm just demonstrating a starting point for anyone interested in a counter to the FTU hypothesis. It's a message board, I'm not writing a thesis. with limited space and attention spans there's little point of over saturating with data.


Thank for a good response instead of dribble. However i disagree. Stenger has been utterly destroyed by Luke Barnes and exposed as having done bad science. I think you want to believe the things Stenger writes to validate your viewpoint but his science is bad and almost every cosmologist who doesnt have an agenda agrees. I hate doing this google war stuff but since you have shown the technical understanding I will bother with this in hopes it doesnt just turn into a quote fest.

Nearly every well respected cosmologists has agreed with FT and i cant find any peer reviewed against it. I will also denote this that to this day Stenger has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology. Stenger also lied about scientists that supported his view and was made to have egg on his face when this was brought up.

This is a short explaination of why Stenger is using bad science but you need to go to Barnes paper which i can send to you to see the whole story.

www.uncommondescent.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Ps. Yes i have been condecending and i need to work on my patience. Its people like you that make me realize this. Its hard for me to try and keep debunking logical fallacies and have people sniping at me with personal attacks. But i need i tougher skin and learn to be a better debator. I have no formal science training(well not true i do have knowledge of acoustics) but am able to understand logic and fallacy through philosophy. Like I said earlier my brother and father are the smart ones. I also dont think civil discourse can be had when people make claims about religion and lump all its people in the same space.
Its funny you mentioned the whole moon bit because the designer of the rocket that got the men to the moon was actually a creationist which furthers my point we cant discredit or make bold statements about groups of unrelated people and who is more equipped to make scientific progress.



edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: edit

edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

The label is a slanderous word, used to discredit, disown, and condemn people to the pyre. It's a word invented by those who believe in God so much that to not believe in him is a sin, punishable by death. Like everything born out of these dogmas, the non-believer is a myth. It's no different than calling oneself a witch and pretending to be one.

As for agnosticism, it is annoying fence-sitting at best.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: grainofsand

The label is a slanderous word, used to discredit, disown, and condemn people to the pyre. It's a word invented by those who believe in God so much that to not believe in him is a sin, punishable by death. Like everything born out of these dogmas, the non-believer is a myth. It's no different than calling oneself a witch and pretending to be one.

As for agnosticism, it is annoying fence-sitting at best.


What is yoir logical basis for your argument against agnosticism? To not choose is makeing a choice, I get it. However, if I were to say I am pantheist or deist I have a feeling it wouldnt sit well with what you believe god is. Hence you have created a metaphysical arguement that has no way to prove or diprove. Meaning its your opinion not backed up by actual logic.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes it is an opinion. It's not annoying fence sitting to you, is it?

To say we cannot know whether God exists presumes that a God is at least possible, when nothing at all shows that to be the case. It is a dogma.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: luthier

Yes it is an opinion. It's not annoying fence sitting to you, is it?

To say we cannot know whether God exists presumes that a God is at least possible, when nothing at all shows that to be the case. It is a dogma.


I already showed the classical logical examples of arguments for the case of god. To say nothing shows god exists is not a valid argument. You have to attack the examples given to you to make that claim other wise its just an opinion and therefor a complete waste of time to even argue the point. I layed out the teleological, FTU which every peer reviewed cosmologist I can find has some agreement with (though it doesnt necesarily point towards god), the ontological, and the cosmological arguments of god. If you want to attack those by all means. To just say there is no evidence however is only an opinion and therefor has no basis in having a logical argument.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

That wasn't my argument.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: luthier

That wasn't my argument.


Explain your argument and reference to dogma.

My point is perhaps I am not smart enough to refute the logical examples of god in a way that doesnt create a logical fallacy. That doesnt make me sitting on the fence. Just that I cant disprove these examples and admit it this. However, I also in many cases am not smart enough to refute the rebuttals to these arguments. Therefor i leave the possibility open both ways.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: luthier

Ps. Yes i have been condecending and i need to work on my patience. Its people like you that make me realize this. Its hard for me to try and keep debunking logical fallacies and have people sniping at me with personal attacks. But i need i tougher skin and learn to be a better debator. I have no formal science training(well not true i do have knowledge of acoustics) but am able to understand logic and fallacy through philosophy. Like I said earlier my brother and father are the smart ones. I also dont think civil discourse can be had when people make claims about religion and lump all its people in the same space.


I think that in at least some instances, pointing out logical fallacies is irrelevant when dealing with science. You can't take a philosophical approach to peer reviewed, testable and repeatable data.
Its funny you mentioned the whole moon bit because the designer of the rocket that got the men to the moon was actually a creationist which furthers my point we cant discredit or make bold statements about groups of unrelated people and who is more equipped to make scientific progress.

Do you have a citation for Von Braun being a creationist? The reason I ask is that Von Braun, when asked to clarify his being called a creationist when he entered an opinion into the California debate on teaching Evolution in the late 60's, Von Braun had this to say-


In Science but not Scientists (Bloomington IN: AuthorHouse, 2006)—elaborately subtitled How Everything Began: CHANCE or CREATION?—Grose quotes von Braun as clarifying his letter:
1.If fundamentalistic religion means belief that the book of Genesis gives a correct scientific account of how the world came into being; that 4004 BC is the date of the origin of the earth, and that all living things were “created” in their final form rather than developed through evolutionary, “survival-of-the-fittest” processes, then I am most emphatically not a believer in fundamental religion.
2.If, however, the question is whether behind the many random processes which are operating in nature, there is a “divine intent”, my answer is an equally emphatic “yes.” With this position I am only sharing and accepting the views expressed by giants of science such as Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Pascal[,] and Einstein. (p. 358)


So yes, he believed in god and since he isn't specific but compares his beliefs to other great minds like Einstein,Faraday etc... it would appear that his approach would have been to separate his theological beliefs from his scientific work as that is the one commonality between the scientists he refers to.

As far as making generalities about people with a strong religious ethos in relation to their ability to conduct good science, it depends on the scenario. Even if Von Braun were actually a creationist, which according to his own words he was not, creationist thought doesn't play much of a role in rocket science or chemistry. Creationist views can not skew the mathematics or proofs of chemical properties and their interactions. When a creationist attempts to discredit tenets of Anthropology for example, they're typically not utilizing the scientific method and are ignoring science in general. You can't really compare the 2 scenarios. Typically, if a proponent of young earth creationism attempts to interject themselves into a physics debate or comment on the age of the universe, they don't have a leg to stand on as they aren't using science to support their claims. There are no creationist papers being published outside of websites or publications catering to specific creationist views, there are no articles or papers being submitted for peer review. Why is that? Because they will not stand up to scrutiny by those in their fields. There is an Australian geologist who publishes work in legitimate peer reviewed journals under his true name and then uses a pseudonym when writing for creationist organizations and what he publishes in peer reviewed journals supports the 4.54 Bn year age of the earth. When he writes for creationist publications or websites, he writes material that completely counters the peer reviewed material as it favors an age of 6-10 KA for the Earth. That's both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. If one uses the scientific method and can support their position with proper science, then there simply isn't an issue and their personal faith doesn't come into question. The fact that anything with a young earth slant is never published for peer review is, in and of itself, rather telling don't you think?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Thank for a good response instead of dribble. However i disagree. Stenger has been utterly destroyed by Luke Barnes and exposed as having done bad science. I think you want to believe the things Stenger writes to validate your viewpoint but his science is bad and almost every cosmologist who doesnt have an agenda agrees. I hate doing this google war stuff but since you have shown the technical understanding I will bother with this in hopes it doesnt just turn into a quote fest.

I'm going to disagree that Dr. Stenger was "destroyed" by Dr. Barnes. I also completely disagree that his science was bad. As well, it's a bit of a misnomer and I would dare say, a misrepresentation, to say that every Cosmologist who doesn't have an agenda agrees that his science was bad. Are you really going to say that Cosmologists who support FTU don't have an agenda? That statement seems to fly in the face of the logic you have railed about so often within this thread.

Nearly every well respected cosmologists has agreed with FT and i cant find any peer reviewed against it.


I'm surprised you couldn't find any peer reviews against FTU. I found several supporting Stengers work alone as well as many others against FTU and the vast majority of reviews I read in favor of FTU were from Creationist sites and blogs. I did find on prominent one from MIT professor, Alan Lightman and I found a blurb from former head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. I don't dispute that some prominent figures support it but to say nearly every well respected cosmologist agrees is a statement I find hard to swallow. The entire statement hinges on qualifiers that are subject to personal interpretation.


I will also denote this that to this day Stenger has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology. Stenger also lied about scientists that supported his view and was made to have egg on his face when this was brought up.

To say he has no peer reviewed papers published on Cosmology is just silly. He is primarily a particle physicist and had published papers from 1964 until only a few years before his death. While his focus was on fundamental particles, to say they weren't a part of cosmology is just untrue. Can you provide a citation for his alleged lies? I know that in Barnes refutation there is a passage that cites people like Richard Dawkins as being in favor of FTU and that is quite simply untrue.

This is a short explaination of why Stenger is using bad science but you need to go to Barnes paper which i can send to you to see the whole story.
www.uncommondescent.com...


I'm familiar with Barnes and his creationist slant. I know him from a refutation he attempted on evolutionary biology a few years ago that was so rife with errors I couldn't take it remotely seriously. As for his refutation of Stenger's book... Stenger brings up enough legitimate issues with FTU as to cast reasonable doubt. It's barely a hypothesis and as of now, there is no falsifiable data presented so anybody who is on board with it is because of personal, theological proclivities and is ignoring the lack of science involved. I'm not saying Stenger is 100% correct but he casts enough doubt and brings up enough valid issues with the proposition that one can not seriously state that it is a fact and call themselves a scientist. I fully admit that I'm not a physicist and that my background is in physical and paleoanthropology so It's entirely possible I missed something. However, based on the atrocious scholarship of Barnes attempt to refute evolution and the degree of doubt cast by Stenger, I'm just not remotely sold on FTU being supported let alone on the degree of support you believe it has. Again, this is just my opinion based on reading on the topic of the last decade and a half, but there isn't anything to compel me to jump in line.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: luthier
Thank for a good response instead of dribble. However i disagree. Stenger has been utterly destroyed by Luke Barnes and exposed as having done bad science. I think you want to believe the things Stenger writes to validate your viewpoint but his science is bad and almost every cosmologist who doesnt have an agenda agrees. I hate doing this google war stuff but since you have shown the technical understanding I will bother with this in hopes it doesnt just turn into a quote fest.

I'm going to disagree that Dr. Stenger was "destroyed" by Dr. Barnes. I also completely disagree that his science was bad. As well, it's a bit of a misnomer and I would dare say, a misrepresentation, to say that every Cosmologist who doesn't have an agenda agrees that his science was bad. Are you really going to say that Cosmologists who support FTU don't have an agenda? That statement seems to fly in the face of the logic you have railed about so often within this thread.

Nearly every well respected cosmologists has agreed with FT and i cant find any peer reviewed against it.


I'm surprised you couldn't find any peer reviews against FTU. I found several supporting Stengers work alone as well as many others against FTU and the vast majority of reviews I read in favor of FTU were from Creationist sites and blogs. I did find on prominent one from MIT professor, Alan Lightman and I found a blurb from former head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. I don't dispute that some prominent figures support it but to say nearly every well respected cosmologist agrees is a statement I find hard to swallow. The entire statement hinges on qualifiers that are subject to personal interpretation.


I will also denote this that to this day Stenger has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology. Stenger also lied about scientists that supported his view and was made to have egg on his face when this was brought up.

To say he has no peer reviewed papers published on Cosmology is just silly. He is primarily a particle physicist and had published papers from 1964 until only a few years before his death. While his focus was on fundamental particles, to say they weren't a part of cosmology is just untrue. Can you provide a citation for his alleged lies? I know that in Barnes refutation there is a passage that cites people like Richard Dawkins as being in favor of FTU and that is quite simply untrue.

This is a short explaination of why Stenger is using bad science but you need to go to Barnes paper which i can send to you to see the whole story.
www.uncommondescent.com...


I'm familiar with Barnes and his creationist slant. I know him from a refutation he attempted on evolutionary biology a few years ago that was so rife with errors I couldn't take it remotely seriously. As for his refutation of Stenger's book... Stenger brings up enough legitimate issues with FTU as to cast reasonable doubt. It's barely a hypothesis and as of now, there is no falsifiable data presented so anybody who is on board with it is because of personal, theological proclivities and is ignoring the lack of science involved. I'm not saying Stenger is 100% correct but he casts enough doubt and brings up enough valid issues with the proposition that one can not seriously state that it is a fact and call themselves a scientist. I fully admit that I'm not a physicist and that my background is in physical and paleoanthropology so It's entirely possible I missed something. However, based on the atrocious scholarship of Barnes attempt to refute evolution and the degree of doubt cast by Stenger, I'm just not remotely sold on FTU being supported let alone on the degree of support you believe it has. Again, this is just my opinion based on reading on the topic of the last decade and a half, but there isn't anything to compel me to jump in line.


Do you have any source for Barnes being of any religious backround at all? What religeon is he? What religious claims has he made?

You are telling me peer review is not important? What do Stengers peer reviewed papers have to do with cosmology? If he wanted to be validated in his claims why didnt he write a paper to be reviewed by the scientific community in cosmology?

Can you list any peer reviewed scientists of cosmology who have argued strongly against the FT? If so I am perefectly willing to read them.

I found these guys who agree with FT. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek.

They make no claims about god. That was the beauty of Barnes destruction of Stenger. He made no claims about god and chose to attack his science.

So you think Dr. Barnes is not a well respected peer reviewed scientist? Thats ubsurd. He is a pretty young man to have so many peer reviewed publications on advanced concepts of physics and cosmology. By your description you make him out to be theist and philosopher.

You can like Stenger all you want. It seems the cosmology area of physics saw Barnes paper as pretty destructive of Stengers book.

My wife had Paul Davies as a professor. I have studied the subject for 20 years. Does that mean anything? Absolutely not.

Point out some of Barnes' problems with his refute. If I dont understand it I can ask my little brother. He is a particle physicist who is doing weather modeling after graduating from the University of Chicago about ten years ago. He worked on a project at fermilab for his thesis so if its a problem with the math i am sure he can help me with it.

Answer me this do you think the scientific community has disproven and dismisses Fine Tuning? I mean peer reviewed papers and scientists not just opinions.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: luthier
Thank for a good response instead of dribble. However i disagree. Stenger has been utterly destroyed by Luke Barnes and exposed as having done bad science. I think you want to believe the things Stenger writes to validate your viewpoint but his science is bad and almost every cosmologist who doesnt have an agenda agrees. I hate doing this google war stuff but since you have shown the technical understanding I will bother with this in hopes it doesnt just turn into a quote fest.

I'm going to disagree that Dr. Stenger was "destroyed" by Dr. Barnes. I also completely disagree that his science was bad. As well, it's a bit of a misnomer and I would dare say, a misrepresentation, to say that every Cosmologist who doesn't have an agenda agrees that his science was bad. Are you really going to say that Cosmologists who support FTU don't have an agenda? That statement seems to fly in the face of the logic you have railed about so often within this thread.

Nearly every well respected cosmologists has agreed with FT and i cant find any peer reviewed against it.


I'm surprised you couldn't find any peer reviews against FTU. I found several supporting Stengers work alone as well as many others against FTU and the vast majority of reviews I read in favor of FTU were from Creationist sites and blogs. I did find on prominent one from MIT professor, Alan Lightman and I found a blurb from former head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. I don't dispute that some prominent figures support it but to say nearly every well respected cosmologist agrees is a statement I find hard to swallow. The entire statement hinges on qualifiers that are subject to personal interpretation.


I will also denote this that to this day Stenger has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology. Stenger also lied about scientists that supported his view and was made to have egg on his face when this was brought up.

To say he has no peer reviewed papers published on Cosmology is just silly. He is primarily a particle physicist and had published papers from 1964 until only a few years before his death. While his focus was on fundamental particles, to say they weren't a part of cosmology is just untrue. Can you provide a citation for his alleged lies? I know that in Barnes refutation there is a passage that cites people like Richard Dawkins as being in favor of FTU and that is quite simply untrue.

This is a short explaination of why Stenger is using bad science but you need to go to Barnes paper which i can send to you to see the whole story.
www.uncommondescent.com...


I'm familiar with Barnes and his creationist slant. I know him from a refutation he attempted on evolutionary biology a few years ago that was so rife with errors I couldn't take it remotely seriously. As for his refutation of Stenger's book... Stenger brings up enough legitimate issues with FTU as to cast reasonable doubt. It's barely a hypothesis and as of now, there is no falsifiable data presented so anybody who is on board with it is because of personal, theological proclivities and is ignoring the lack of science involved. I'm not saying Stenger is 100% correct but he casts enough doubt and brings up enough valid issues with the proposition that one can not seriously state that it is a fact and call themselves a scientist. I fully admit that I'm not a physicist and that my background is in physical and paleoanthropology so It's entirely possible I missed something. However, based on the atrocious scholarship of Barnes attempt to refute evolution and the degree of doubt cast by Stenger, I'm just not remotely sold on FTU being supported let alone on the degree of support you believe it has. Again, this is just my opinion based on reading on the topic of the last decade and a half, but there isn't anything to compel me to jump in line.


Do you have any source for Barnes being of any religious backround at all? What religeon is he? What religious claims has he made?

You are telling me peer review is not important? What do Stengers peer reviewed papers have to do with cosmology? If he wanted to be validated in his claims why didnt he write a paper to be reviewed by the scientific community in cosmology?

Can you list any peer reviewed scientists of cosmology who have argued strongly against the FT? If so I am perefectly willing to read them.

I found these guys who agree with FT. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek.

They make no claims about god. That was the beauty of Barnes destruction of Stenger. He made no claims about god and chose to attack his science.

So you think Dr. Barnes is not a well respected peer reviewed scientist? Thats ubsurd. He is a pretty young man to have so many peer reviewed publications on advanced concepts of physics and cosmology. By your description you make him out to be theist and philosopher.

You can like Stenger all you want. It seems the cosmology area of physics saw Barnes paper as pretty destructive of Stengers book.

My wife had Paul Davies as a professor. I have studied the subject for 20 years. Does that mean anything? Absolutely not.

Point out some of Barnes' problems with his refute. If I dont understand it I can ask my little brother. He is a particle physicist who is doing weather modeling after graduating from the University of Chicago about ten years ago. He worked on a project at fermilab for his thesis so if its a problem with the math i am sure he can help me with it.

Answer me this do you think the scientific community has disproven and dismisses Fine Tuning? I mean peer reviewed papers and scientists not just opinions.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Atheists usually quote science and science is basically governed by interpretation. Research is selected by desires mostly, not by need. Scientific evidence is misused and misinterpreted all the time and it sets parameters that steer the outcome to prove what they are looking for.

So you believe in science which is plagued with deceit and misinterpretation. I would rather put my belief in a possibly fictional being that is said to be truth. I actually used to be hooked on science till I read a lot of the research and found that most of it is done just to promote the acquisition of money or to defend a person's beliefs.

Atheism qualifies as a religion in my book.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I found this for you Peter. I am hoping you read an may feel more comfortable knowing Lowder is an Atheist. A famous one at that.

If you do read it pay close attention to part 3.

www.patheos.com...

The fine-tuning argument we all agree is the most intriguing. It is not trivial – we all say that.” Hitchens is emphatic and repeats the point, “We all agree about that.”
edit on 19-7-2015 by luthier because: edit



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Atheists usually quote science and science is basically governed by interpretation.



Yeah, they are currently beaming back images of Pluto becase NASA got lucky with their interpretation of planetary mechanics/gravity/propulsion etc...

/s

You clearly know zero about how science works...please stop guessing.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join