Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The original issue was "does any deity exist?" From this you moved the goal post to the so-called Anthopic Principle (a creationist invention in the same vein as "irreducible complexity"). Out of this you asked the question "what are the odds that all those constants come together in just such a precise way as to make life possible on this planet?" This is another plurium interrogationum whose lie is that you assume I agree with the rejection of my former posts on the subject. For clarification I quite reasonably asked "How 'precise' do they have to be to make life possible? Give me a number. Plus or minus what?" Note that there is no plurium interrogationum in this question. Your response shifted the goal posts from precision to probability.

No, the original issue YOU raised was that there is order in the universe. From there I went to the Big Firecracker in Deep Space Theory to challenge you to explain to us how a huge explosion could create order in the universe when in the real world, we know from experience that such explosions always result in destruction, chaos and havoc.

And if you want to know what little variance there can be for each of the constants in order for life to exist on this planet, then contact Dr. Ross.

Also, I'm still waiting to find out from you why you considered Ross to be an authority in his field when you do not consider his panel of expert peers, who may have sat in judgment of his research, to not be authorities in theirs.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, the original issue YOU raised was that there is order in the universe. From there I went to the Big Firecracker in Deep Space Theory to challenge you to explain to us how a huge explosion could create order in the universe when in the real world, we know from experience that such explosions always result in destruction, chaos and havoc.

I refer you to post #4809. Have you read it? If so, do you understand it?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, I'm still waiting to find out from you why you considered Ross to be an authority in his field when you do not consider his panel of expert peers, who may have sat in judgment of his research, to not be authorities in theirs.

When you went to college did you ever take a course where the teacher asked you to define your terms? If so, did said teacher then let you get away with regurgitating a dictionary definition?

My answer to both these questions is "yes" and "no".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Actor

My local library has one of his books: More Than a Theory: a Testable Model for Creation. Sounds intriguing! How about we put our discussion of Dr. Ross on hold while I check it out and take time to read and critique it?

I went to the Library only to find that the book is checked out. I put a hold on it. The Library will call me when it's returned.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Science class is in session.

Let's discuss the general nature of explosions. As a representative example let's consider a nuclear explosion where uranium splits into krypton and barium. It is unlikely that the fission is complete so not all the uranium atoms split into krypton and barium. The fission is nearly instantaneous so we have an initial condition consisting of a very hot gas composed of uranium, krypton and barium atoms under very high pressure in a very small space. The temperature and pressure are constant throughout. But this quickly changes because the gas is not contained and the mixture expands, becomes cooler and the pressure drops. Now we see structure, like an onion where each layer is one atom thick. The outer layers are cooler and under less pressure than the inner layers. There is order.

This same description applies to chemical explosions and to compressed gasses whose containers fail.

Of course we tend to associate explosions, deliverate and accidental, with destruction of things outside the explosion itself. But the big bang is the universe. There is no outside the universe.

Let's consider two examples of order (structure) caused by gravity. First is the fact that stars and planets have spherical shapes. Any large mass of liquid or gas will assume a spherical shape because any other shape requires that part of the liquid be uphill (for lack of a better word) from it's surroundings, and you simply do not have hills in bodies of water. Waves, yes, but not hills. Stars are balls of gas and planets begin as molten liquid.

The other example is the fact that the orbits of planets (and moons and space vehicles) are ellipses with the sun (planet) at one focus of the ellipse. That's one of Kepler's Laws. That's structure. That's order.

For an example of order based on the electric force I give you the periodic table. Arrange all the elements in order of the number of protons in their nuclei and you see characteristics repeat at regular intervals. That's order.

Good. Now duplicate the BB in a lab to prove your theory. After all, explosions in the universe should behave the same way. (After all, whatever happens in the universe stays in the universe and becomes an integral part of the universe.) We should get order and structure. Should be a cakewalk for you.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good. Now duplicate the BB in a lab to prove your theory.

That's what C.E.R.N. and the Large Hadron Collider are doing.

Originally Posted by boxcar

After all, explosions in the universe should behave the same way.

The Big Bang is not actually an explosion but an expansion. The term "Big Bang" originated with Hoyle and it's actually a misnomer. Unfortunately the press picked it up and ran with it, consequently the scientifically challenged think the BB was an explosion.

Originally Posted by boxcar

(After all, whatever happens in the universe stays in the universe and becomes an integral part of the universe.) We should get order and structure.

Right. Let's stay posted with the developments at C.E.R.N.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's what C.E.R.N. and the Large Hadron Collider are doing.
The Big Bang is not actually an explosion but an expansion. The term "Big Bang" originated with Hoyle and it's actually a misnomer. Unfortunately the press picked it up and ran with it, consequently the scientifically challenged think the BB was an explosion.
Right. Let's stay posted with the developments at C.E.R.N.

You're blaming the press when you and a numerous other scientists have continually used this term?

And the BB is an "expansion" of what exactly?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're blaming the press when you and a numerous other scientists have continually used this term?

Not really blaming anyone. Yes, we have gleefully adopted the term and it's probably here to stay but unfortunately it does give the erroneous impression that the universe came from an explosion.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And the BB is an "expansion" of what exactly?

Space and time.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not really blaming anyone. Yes, we have gleefully adopted the term and it's probably here to stay but unfortunately it does give the erroneous impression that the universe came from an explosion.
Space and time.

And how did space and time come to be?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And how did space and time come to be?

We don't know yet. The event seems to unknowable due to the uncertainty principle, i.e., anything before the Planck era is uncertain. On the other hand, since dark energy seems to have come into being only 5 or 6 billion years ago, Gamow's oscillating universe hypothesis is again on the table. I tend to favor that one because it is so elegant but it has yet to be tested.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

We don't know yet. The event seems to unknowable due to the uncertainty principle, i.e., anything before the Planck era is uncertain.

The science gods of the gap. Yup...one day those gods will fill in all those empty gaps.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The science gods of the gap. Yup...one day those gods will fill in all those empty gaps.

If that particular gap is ever filled it will be filled by scientists, not gods.

There are admittedly plenty of gaps in science. After all, we've only been at it 500 years. Religion has been at it for thousands of years and still has not found any answers.

Religion's answer to "prove it" is "thou shalt not put God to the test". Yeah! Right!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

If that particular gap is ever filled it will be filled by scientists, not gods.

"IF"...did you say? Oh...that's right...The only thing you can be certain of is the Uncertainty Principle, right?

There are admittedly plenty of gaps in science. After all, we've only been at it 500 years. Religion has been at it for thousands of years and still has not found any answers.

It took man about 200,000 years to invent religion?

Religion's answer to "prove it" is "thou shalt not put God to the test". Yeah! Right!

And your answer to "prove it" is "scientists don't know yet".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It took man about 200,000 years to invent religion?

Ask an anthropologist.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And your answer to "prove it" is "scientists don't know yet".

Sometimes, but not in most cases. If your doctor (a scientist) tells you that you have cancer then he can probably prove it with an uncertainty of less than one in a million. When blood starts pouring out of your ass I strongly recommend you head for the ER, not the church.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ask an anthropologist.
Sometimes, but not in most cases. If your doctor (a scientist) tells you that you have cancer then he can probably prove it with an uncertainty of less than one in a million. When blood starts pouring out of your ass I strongly recommend you head for the ER, not the church.

I'm glad you brought up doctors/scientists. Perhaps you'll be able to find one to tell you that you're a being or [brain] dead. I don't think there's one chance in a trillion you know what you are. Must really suck to be so uncertain about everything in life...