Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

""constancy in nature" by universal chance - a neat trick!" ????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ""constancy in nature" by universal chance - a neat trick!" ????

    I am not aware of any materialist, "not true Christian" Christian, atheist, evolutionist, non Christian theist, secularist, or other wicked sinful person arguing anything like the quote in the title.

    Can someone provide an example please? An example of any of us making such a silly claim? An example of any of us making an argument which implies this?

    The quote looks to me like a bit of creationist silliness. Could this be possible?

  • #2
    It looks like typical straw man stuff to me. They can't be bothered to figure out what the other side really thinks, so they just make stuff up about them and disprove that.
    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
      I am not aware of any materialist, "not true Christian" Christian, atheist, evolutionist, non Christian theist, secularist, or other wicked sinful person arguing anything like the quote in the title.

      Can someone provide an example please? An example of any of us making such a silly claim? An example of any of us making an argument which implies this?

      The quote looks to me like a bit of creationist silliness. Could this be possible?
      Only comment at present any quote referring to the macro natural world as 'by chance' is suspicious to begin with, because nothing in our natural world actually happens 'by chance.' What appears random is in reality fractal by nature.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
        It looks like typical straw man stuff to me. They can't be bothered to figure out what the other side really thinks, so they just make stuff up about them and disprove that.
        I agree.

        It's the kind of thinking a dimwit would make, particularly if repeated after reality being explained to the creationist.

        If a true Christian claims that a God of pure truth and justice guided her/him to write such nonsense then it kind of undercuts any claim for Bibilcal inerrancy and infallibility.

        If modern believers write such crap under the guidance of God, then why on earth expect that the ancients necessarily did any better, even with the various books and letters in the Bible?

        I don't think many creationists think about the consequences of the kind of claims, assertions, and arguments they make.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Only comment at present any quote referring to the macro natural world as 'by chance' is suspicious to begin with, because nothing in our natural world actually happens 'by chance.' What appears random is in reality fractal by nature.
          Even in the context of random and macro, such claims are nonsense. Sure, randomness plays a huge part, but it's not the only part. In Darwin's version of the process, selection also plays a huge part. Selection constrains what would otherwise be a random process.

          The moment constraints apply, then direction is supplied.

          Even without selection, the laws of genetics and hereditary apply. These too, act to constrain what would otherwise be an unconstrained process. Hence more direction is supplied to the process.

          That some creationists cry this "random" mantra continuoulsy illustrates the willingness of some of them to lie, and to do so repeatedly. Exactly what kind of a god guides these folk is beyond me.

          The only reason to worship such a dimwitted deity would be to escape hell, assuming such a nincompoop had created a hell. Certainly not worthy of worship in my opinion.
          Last edited by rwatts; 07-31-2016, 07:43 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rwatts View Post
            I am not aware of any materialist, "not true Christian" Christian, atheist, evolutionist, non Christian theist, secularist, or other wicked sinful person arguing anything like the quote in the title.

            Can someone provide an example please? An example of any of us making such a silly claim? An example of any of us making an argument which implies this?

            The quote looks to me like a bit of creationist silliness. Could this be possible?
            Can you give the context of this quote?

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Can you give the context of this quote?
              Far be it from me to run away when asked such a question. I note that you, as a "not true Christian" Christian, don't run away either rogue06.

              Here is the context (Bolding is mine. Original bolding removed.):-

              God's character is EXACTLY what allows for (true) science to exist and be conducted.
              "The same yesterday, today and always" is reflected in the constancy of natural laws.
              Your worldview, OTOH, gives us "constancy in nature" by universal chance - a neat trick!
              .
              .
              .
              But don't be changing the subject. We were talking about the "magic" that YOU employ.
              You know what I mean ... like the magic in which an entire universe appears out of NOTHING.

              Kindly let us in on how (pseudo)scientists perform that trick. At least when a rabbit is
              pulled out of a hat, there's a magician and a hat. How do you get an entire universe
              with no magician, no hat, no ANYTHING? We anxiously wait for the revelation....... 

              Jorge

              It can be found here:-

              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post347695

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                Even in the context of random and macro, such claims are nonsense. Sure, randomness plays a huge part, but it's not the only part. In Darwin's version of the process, selection also plays a huge part. Selection constrains what would otherwise be a random process.

                The moment constraints apply, then direction is supplied.

                Even without selection, the laws of genetics and hereditary apply. These too, act to constrain what would otherwise be an unconstrained process. Hence more direction is supplied to the process.

                That some creationists cry this "random" mantra continuoulsy illustrates the willingness of some of them to lie, and to do so repeatedly. Exactly what kind of a god guides these folk is beyond me.

                The only reason to worship such a dimwitted deity would be to escape hell, assuming such a nincompoop had created a hell. Certainly not worthy of worship in my opinion.
                It is best to drop the words 'chance,' 'random' and randomness' when referring to macro nature of our physical existence, because randomness is not an observed quality, it is the fractal nature described by 'chaos theory' which describes the variation of cause and effect events in our physical existence.

                Even at the Quantum level where the only truly random nature is observed is questionable, because it remains an observed quality from the human perspective and may not be truely random.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                  I am not aware of any materialist, "not true Christian" Christian, atheist, evolutionist, non Christian theist, secularist, or other wicked sinful person arguing anything like the quote in the title.

                  Can someone provide an example please? An example of any of us making such a silly claim? An example of any of us making an argument which implies this?

                  The quote looks to me like a bit of creationist silliness. Could this be possible?
                  It's my quote so let me respond in like kind:
                  Your ignorance in these matters is not my fault.
                  Or could it be that you are trying to pin that on me also?

                  Jorge
                  Last edited by Jorge; 08-01-2016, 07:56 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                    It looks like typical straw man stuff to me. They can't be bothered to figure out what the other side really thinks, so they just make stuff up about them and disprove that.

                    Your ignorance in these matters is not our fault.
                    Or could it be that you are trying to pin that on us also?

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      It's my quote so let me respond in like kind:
                      Your ignorance in these matters is not my fault.
                      Or could it be that you are trying to pin that on me also?

                      Jorge
                      Why would anyone be trying to 'pin' on you what is painfully obvious to the most casual observer?

                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Why would anyone be trying to 'pin' on you what is painfully obvious to the most casual observer?

                        Jim
                        So says the original 'Dumbo'.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Your ignorance in these matters is not our fault.
                          However no example from you Jorge.

                          You are simply running away from providing one.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                            Far be it from me to run away when asked such a question. I note that you, as a "not true Christian" Christian, don't run away either rogue06.

                            Here is the context:-

                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            ...

                            God's character is EXACTLY what allows for (true) science to exist and be conducted.
                            "The same yesterday, today and always" is reflected in the constancy of natural laws.
                            Your worldview, OTOH, gives us "constancy in nature" by universal chance - a neat trick!

                            But don't be changing the subject. We were talking about the "magic" that YOU employ.
                            You know what I mean ... like the magic in which an entire universe appears out of NOTHING.

                            Kindly let us in on how (pseudo)scientists perform that trick. At least when a rabbit is
                            pulled out of a hat, there's a magician and a hat. How do you get an entire universe
                            with no magician, no hat, no ANYTHING? We anxiously wait for the revelation.......

                            Jorge
                            I see that any post by Jorge gets an instant knee-jerk negative reaction, so well done for being so scrupulous as to ask (paraphrasing) whether others can make sense of it, and for giving Jorge some benefit of the doubt. Although Jorge would probably regard me, too, as a "not true Christian", I'll have a look at the several issues arising and try to make sense of them for me and for you.
                            (I see this is #1 with four to come -- he's on his own for those.)

                            When Lawrence Krauss claimed you could get "a universe from nothing" -- the title of his book -- he was strongly criticised by a number of philosophers of science (and other philosophers, too), and, so far as I can tell, supported by none. His "nothing", as all pointed out, was not actually nothing, but an already-existing quantum foam. So when Jorge says ...
                            We were talking about the "magic" that YOU employ. You know what I mean ... like the magic in which an entire universe appears out of NOTHING. Kindly let us in on how (pseudo)scientists perform that trick. At least when a rabbit is pulled out of a hat, there's a magician and a hat. How do you get an entire universe with no magician, no hat, no ANYTHING? We anxiously wait for the revelation.......

                            ... his criticism of Krauss and those who think likewise has strong support (in more sober language) from philosophers of science.

                            Then there's:
                            God's character is EXACTLY what allows for (true) science to exist and be conducted. "The same yesterday, today and always" is reflected in the constancy of natural laws.

                            My local Baptist Minister, a PhD bio-chemist in earlier life, argues exactly this in his occasional public talks, and in the opening chapter of one of his books on the compatibility of Christianity and science. The argument, very briefly, is that whereas the gods of other nations were conceived as capricious, arbitrary and unpredictable mere actors on the stage of an already-existing world -- like big, powerful humans, if you like -- the Christian God created the world to be orderly and regular, an intelligible world. It is because God created an orderly world that is intelligible to human reason that the use of reason is possible and worthwhile; we can thus use what became science to discern the natural laws underlying the regular behaviour of nature.

                            I've seen this view elsewhere, indeed anytime you see talk of science as "understanding/revealing the mind of God", you in effect see this view. I'd say that Jorge has succinctly and well summarised a standard mainstream Christian view.

                            Having set the scene, now to your real question:
                            Your worldview, OTOH, gives us "constancy in nature" by universal chance - a neat trick!

                            This has to refer to the Big Bang.

                            (It's well known that the universe's constants are extraordinarily fine-tuned, and that had there been a tiny change in any constant no life -- nor even rocks -- would have been produced. I mention this in passing to emphasise this is not what I am about to talk about, because what I will discuss possible universes where the constants are variables.)

                            We are very, very used to "constancy in nature" (and the constancy of natural laws), indeed it's so familiar that we have difficulty so much as conceiving that one of any number of radically different universes might have come into existence, difficulty even in entertaining the mere principle. But to put the matter succinctly, Why not?

                            Where did our own universe's constancy of laws and constants come from -- inflation is a partial answer, but it explains what came after, not what came before. Inflation does not explain where inflation came from and why, or why did it start when it did, why did it continue how it did, why did it stop when it did, why did it even stop, nor where the laws governing its start, details of progression or its stop came from? Was inflation inevitable, if so, why -- by what cause or causes? Instead of a stretched uniform universe we could have had a "swirling", "turbulent" universe in which constants and laws are not constant but variable -- changing perhaps regularly, perhaps stepwise, perhaps fractally, or perhaps totally haphazardly randomly from place to place, moment to moment.

                            Or perhaps the universe could have been a Harry Potter type magical universe of laws that you make up and effect as you go, or which you can twist in different directions at will.

                            Or as the bottom link says, taking this idea to its logical extreme, "“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada."

                            On the view that God created a regular, ordered universe, the "constancy in nature" (or the constancy of natural laws) is to be expected. On the other hand, the view that the universe came from a genuine nothing (ie not even a quantum foam), a nothing containing no substance or energy, and most importantly no laws to cause what laws, or direct or determine what laws, would subsequently appear in the new-born universe -- on that view the laws we actually have were undetermined hence chance laws.

                            Jorge is saying, I think, that hitting on our regular, orderly universe of "constancy in nature" (and constant natural laws) purely by chance is implausible; or, as he terms it, "a neat trick!"

                            https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ne...birth-universe

                            http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyp...iverse-1.13743

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
                              I see that any post by Jorge gets an instant knee-jerk negative reaction, so well done for being so scrupulous as to ask (paraphrasing) whether others can make sense of it, and for giving Jorge some benefit of the doubt.
                              Don't know what that means but ... moving on ...

                              BY THE WAY: Lengthy posts (as this one) are very hard to address. I prefer the point-by-point method (i.e., addressing all points) and such lengthy posts make that very difficult. Just FYI.

                              Although Jorge would probably regard me, too, as a "not true Christian", I'll have a look at the several issues arising and try to make sense of them for me and for you.
                              I've made my position fairly clear on that point yet I don't recall any input from you and so I am at a disadvantage. Regardless, seems like you've already categorized yourself so I'll have that in mind.


                              (I see this is #1 with four to come -- he's on his own for those.)
                              Good heavens, this is ONLY # 1?!?


                              When Lawrence Krauss claimed you could get "a universe from nothing" -- the title of his book -- he was strongly criticised by a number of philosophers of science (and other philosophers, too), and, so far as I can tell, supported by none. His "nothing", as all pointed out, was not actually nothing, but an already-existing quantum foam. So when Jorge says ...
                              Because your post is so lengthy I'll get right to it:
                              WHERE DID THE "already-existing quantum foam" COME FROM?
                              IOW, what was (is) the source of its origin .. what created it?

                              There are but two possible answers: the source is eternal or the source had an origin. If it had an origin then what was it and where did THAT come from? If eternal then we have abandoned the realm of science and wandered into metaphysical speculation. Which is it for you? Keep in mind that there is no third option.

                              [Know that I am aware of Krauss and the rest of the "scientists" out there promoting fiction].
                              [Know also that I understand their fictions although I may use layman terms].


                              We were talking about the "magic" that YOU employ. You know what I mean ... like the magic in which an entire universe appears out of NOTHING. Kindly let us in on how (pseudo)scientists perform that trick. At least when a rabbit is pulled out of a hat, there's a magician and a hat. How do you get an entire universe with no magician, no hat, no ANYTHING? We anxiously wait for the revelation.......


                              ... his criticism of Krauss and those who think likewise has strong support (in more sober language) from philosophers of science.
                              This isn't a popularity contest nor a democracy. Once upon a time there were many supporters for the Phlogiston Theory. Numbers don't make any position correct. Just look at the vast herds that have swallowed the Evolution story hook, line and sinker. If numbers mattered, the controversy would be settled.

                              Then there's:
                              God's character is EXACTLY what allows for (true) science to exist and be conducted. "The same yesterday, today and always" is reflected in the constancy of natural laws.

                              My local Baptist Minister, a PhD bio-chemist in earlier life, argues exactly this in his occasional public talks, and in the opening chapter of one of his books on the compatibility of Christianity and science. The argument, very briefly, is that whereas the gods of other nations were conceived as capricious, arbitrary and unpredictable mere actors on the stage of an already-existing world -- like big, powerful humans, if you like -- the Christian God created the world to be orderly and regular, an intelligible world. It is because God created an orderly world that is intelligible to human reason that the use of reason is possible and worthwhile; we can thus use what became science to discern the natural laws underlying the regular behaviour of nature.

                              I've seen this view elsewhere, indeed anytime you see talk of science as "understanding/revealing the mind of God", you in effect see this view. I'd say that Jorge has succinctly and well summarised a standard mainstream Christian view.
                              Okay ............


                              Having set the scene, now to your real question:
                              Your worldview, OTOH, gives us "constancy in nature" by universal chance - a neat trick!

                              This has to refer to the Big Bang.
                              Not necessarily and not just that but, okay, it may be a part of it.

                              (It's well known that the universe's constants are extraordinarily fine-tuned, and that had there been a tiny change in any constant no life -- nor even rocks -- would have been produced. I mention this in passing to emphasise this is not what I am about to talk about, because what I will discuss possible universes where the constants are variables.)
                              Oh good grief, please tell me it's not multiverses! Arrrrggghhhh!!!!!!!

                              We are very, very used to "constancy in nature" (and the constancy of natural laws), indeed it's so familiar that we have difficulty so much as conceiving that one of any number of radically different universes might have come into existence, difficulty even in entertaining the mere principle. But to put the matter succinctly, Why not?
                              Yup, it's multiverses. Point me to the EXIT!!!


                              Where did our own universe's constancy of laws and constants come from -- inflation is a partial answer, but it explains what came after, not what came before. Inflation does not explain where inflation came from and why, or why did it start when it did, why did it continue how it did, why did it stop when it did, why did it even stop, nor where the laws governing its start, details of progression or its stop came from? Was inflation inevitable, if so, why -- by what cause or causes? Instead of a stretched uniform universe we could have had a "swirling", "turbulent" universe in which constants and laws are not constant but variable -- changing perhaps regularly, perhaps stepwise, perhaps fractally, or perhaps totally haphazardly randomly from place to place, moment to moment.

                              Or perhaps the universe could have been a Harry Potter type magical universe of laws that you make up and effect as you go, or which you can twist in different directions at will.

                              Or as the bottom link says, taking this idea to its logical extreme, "“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada."

                              On the view that God created a regular, ordered universe, the "constancy in nature" (or the constancy of natural laws) is to be expected. On the other hand, the view that the universe came from a genuine nothing (ie not even a quantum foam), a nothing containing no substance or energy, and most importantly no laws to cause what laws, or direct or determine what laws, would subsequently appear in the new-born universe -- on that view the laws we actually have were undetermined hence chance laws.
                              I keep away from wild, unsupported and unsupportable speculations concocted primarily for one purpose: so that certain people could explain what we do observe WITHOUT needing an intelligent, purposeful agent to do so. The only time I waste on this is to understand what is being said (so as to be informed). After that, why waste time on nonsense?

                              Jorge is saying, I think, that hitting on our regular, orderly universe of "constancy in nature" (and constant natural laws) purely by chance is implausible; or, as he terms it, "a neat trick!"
                              I know what I said and I also know what I mean. Do you? Simply, I do not invoke unsupportable Materialistic Voodoo to account for what we observe.

                              [/QUOTE]

                              Okay .................


                              "KEEP 'EM SHORT" dot com..............................

                              Jorge
                              Last edited by Jorge; 08-05-2016, 02:02 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              136 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X