TE exegesis and meditations on the "design" passages.

[technomage]

My apologies on the name confusion. I'm not sure where I got Jesse from. I think I recall your correct name now. If you'd prefer it not be used anymore, I won't say it.

No problem, and thanks.

You are correct in that the multiverse is a possible reason for fine-tuning, but, as it stands, fine-tuning is a real phenomena.

"Reason for," or "obviation of?"

It's my understanding that fine-tuning is only relevant in a singular universe.

[KBertsche]

As early as A Brief History of Time:

This work on inflationary models showed that the present state of the universe could have arisen from quite a large number of different initial configurations. This is important, because it shows that the initial state of the part of the universe that we inhabit did not have to be chosen with great care. So we may, if we wish, use the weak anthropic principle to explain why the universe looks the way it does now. It cannot be the case, however, that every initial configuration would have led to a universe like the one we observe. One can show this by considering a very different state for the universe at the present time, say, a very lumpy and irregular one. One could use the laws of science to evolve the universe back in time to determine its configuration at earlier times. According to the singularity theorems of classical general relativity, there would still have been a big bang singularity. If you evolve such a universe forward in time according to the laws of science, you will end up with the lumpy and irregular state you started with. Thus there must have been initial configurations that would not have given rise to a universe like the one we see today. So even the inflationary model does not tell us why the initial configuration was not such as to produce something very different from what we observe. Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation?Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe.

Emphasis added. Here is the foundation of Hawking's multiverse scenario--a scenario that notes that we are not living in a fine-tuned universe, but in one particular universe among many.

Are we speaking a different language? In Hawking's quote above, he is describing and defending fine-tuning, not rejecting it! Hawking says that if things had started differently we would have ended up with a very different universe--this is the concept of "fine-tuning." He does not like the anthropic principle as an explanation for fine-tuning, and prefers the multiverse. But he does so in an attempt to face and explain fine-tuning, not to deny that it exists. He seems to be doing something similar in his "top-down" model. He is trying to explain fine-tuning, not to deny it.

It seems that much of the disagreement between you and I is semantic. Fine-tuning is a physical/cosmological observation to be explained, not a philosophical claim to be denied. One explanation is the multiverse. Another explanation is the anthropic principle. Both explanations are philosophical/metaphysical/religious.

You miss my point: the code is available, and can be modified to allow variations in the cosmological constant. Feel free to play with it.

You've made this point many times. I have not missed it; I disagree with it. Have you read the description of his code? Where and how can it be "modified to allow variations in the cosmological constant?" As far as I can tell, it is very crude and does not contain the cosmological constant or simulate cosmic expansion.

[technomage]

Are we speaking a different language?

We may be: as I told MrMan, " It's my understanding that fine-tuning is only relevant in a singular universe." I do not even see how fine-tuning can be relevant in a multiverse: if you have a multiverse that starts with a quantum event where all possible starting parameters exist, then it is obvious that some sub-sets of the multiverse will thrive and be populated, and some will not be populated (for whatever reason--they collapse prematurely, they expand too quickly, whatever).
.

[KBertsche]

More to the point: my understanding of "fine-tuning" is that it only applies to a singular universe scenario: in the multiverse scenario tentatively suggested by Weinberg and Kraus, and explicitly argued for by Hawking and Hertog, fine tuning is irrelevant, because the multiverse started with all possible values for Λ. The universes that had a value for the cosmological constant that did not allow for expansion did not populate, but do (or at least did) still exist: we happen to be in one that had a value for Λ that allowed for the formation of galaxies, but that's not "fine-tuning," any more than suggesting that earth is "fine-tuned" for life when compared to Pluto.

That looks to be very much what Weinberk, Kraus, and Hawking/Hertog are arguing for--not a fine-tuned singular universe, but simply one universe out of a multitude.

There may be a few physicists (e.g. Stenger?) who would look at it this way. But I believe most physicists and cosmologists who accept the multiverse would still describe our universe as "fine-tuned." The multiverse is a way to explain fine tuning, not a way to deny it. (And I believe most would agree that earth IS fine-tuned for life when compared to Pluto.)

Note also that the multiverse, at present, arguably belongs more in the realm of philosophy or religion than in science. It may develop more of a scientific footing in the future. But at present, it seems to be no more scientific than the anthropic principle.

[technomage]

There may be a few physicists (e.g. Stenger?) who would look at it this way. But I believe most physicists and cosmologists who accept the multiverse would still describe our universe as "fine-tuned." The multiverse is a way to explain fine tuning, not a way to deny it.

If that is how you see it, then I apologize for my accusation of quotemining, and withdraw the accusation. I do see the arguments presented by your quoted sources as invoking the multiverse as a denial of fine-tuning, but also acknowledge that my understanding of their argument may be in error.

Pax?

(And I believe most would agree that earth IS fine-tuned for life when compared to Pluto.)

Fine-tuned for carbon-based life? Perhaps--but is that the only form of life possible?.

I cannot separate the term "fine-tuned" from the concept of a deliberate, outside influence (and while I am a devout theist, such an influence falls outside the realm of science).

Note also that the multiverse, at present, arguably belongs more in the realm of philosophy or religion than in science.

On this, I disagree: Hawking and Hertog's 2006 paper identifies some possibilities that other universes from the multiverse scenario may have had a discernible effect upon our universe: if the identification is correct, we have, at least, the potential to falsify the assertion. It's not currently testable (due to limits of our technology), but is certainly falsifiable--once the technology catches up.

[age2age]

So, assuming for the sake of argument the untenability of design arguments for God and the subsequent evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship, what do these passages mean? What validity can they have for us today? Can anything truly be learned about God from examination of nature, or do these passages mean something else entirely?

Sorry, but I would like to go back to the original posting and ask some questions.
1. What does this mean: "the untenability of design arguments for God"?
2. Then you said: "evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship." Can you state it in a different manner? Why did you use the word "evolutionary"?
3. Are you an evolutionist? Is that why you used "TE" in the title of your thread?

[technomage]

Sorry, but I would like to go back to the original posting and ask some questions.
1. What does this mean: "the untenability of design arguments for God"?
2. Then you said: "evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship." Can you state it in a different manner? Why did you use the word "evolutionary"?
3. Are you an evolutionist? Is that why you used "TE" in the title of your thread?

Kelp is a YEC (cite) who is attempting to understand the views of those of his brothers and sisters in Christ who do not share his YEC beliefs.

[Kelp]

Sorry, but I would like to go back to the original posting and ask some questions.
1. What does this mean: "the untenability of design arguments for God"?

Many people, including some Christians do not accept the logical worth of arguments that God's existence can be proven from nature. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that they are right. I admit, they may be wrong.

2. Then you said: "evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship." Can you state it in a different manner? Why did you use the word "evolutionary"?

Essentially the same as above, that God cannot be proven from nature since evolution and other natural processes can account for what we see in nature (again, assuming evolution is true, etc.). As KBertsche pointed out, perhaps a made a poor choice of words there.

3. Are you an evolutionist? Is that why you used "TE" in the title of your thread?

See above. I guess it would be best to call me a doubting/agnostic YEC.

[age2age]

:I guess it would be best to call me a doubting/agnostic YEC.

I always have one question I ask of TE's: what do you do with the apostle's injuction, "Do not go beyond what is written"?

I fear God. To say that God used evolution to create, when what we are given is that he formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed life into him, is to betray a heart devoid of the fear of God.

Again, to all TE's: what will you do with the apostle's warning? Are you greater than the apostle? Is it but a suggestion to you?

[Kelp]

Well, I'm so glad to be talking to prophet who knows what's in my heart I forgive you for your presumptuousness.

The TE's that I know are not going beyond what is written, merely finding out what the text is really saying in light of the scientific evidence. Do you condemn scholars of Greek and Hebrew for trying to gain insight into Scripture through linguistics?

How is being formed from the natural materials of the earth any different than being formed from dust? You're using too woodenly literal a reading of the text, methinks.

[technomage]

I always have one question I ask of TE's: what do you do with the apostle's injuction, "Do not go beyond what is written"?

Most Christians--YEC or TE--would apply the passage in context:

6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

The apostle is not using the phrase as you are using it. Indeed, he is quoting a Greek proverb to prove a theological point--that Christians are not to be of Paul, or of Apollos--and thus to divide the church--but of God.

To say that God used evolution to create, when what we are given is that he formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed life into him, is to betray a heart devoid of the fear of God.

Assuming God both inspired the scriptures and created the earth, then he either inspired that passage with a non-literal meaning, or he flat out lied when he created an earth (and a universe) that demonstrates a multi-billion year history, via myriad lines of evidence, all agreeing with one another to form a concilient argument for an old earth.

So make your choice, a2a--will you acknowledge that God can be a poet, or accuse him of being a liar? No third alternative exists.

[age2age]

No third alternative exists.

Are you sure? How sure?

[age2age]

Ok, I used to be "sure" like you too. But I guess I have had just enough physics and mathematics to test just how "sure" I really was. So for the last three years I began a quest to disprove my "sureness." The model I developed has left me with tremendous doubts about a universe containing 13.7 billion years of ordinal time. I discovered that conclusion was simply not necessary from a scientific standpoint. Here's my point: any theory you have which militates against the Bible should be followed by an investigation into your idea's possibility, and more, its eventual likelihood. I simply tested and researched the possibility that the Genesis Bible text is figurative concerning the length of ordinal time since creation and found a loophole. That's all I needed. One (good, sound, scientific) way that the idea of long ages could be incorrect and I had to conclude "What if that was the way God did it?" From that point on, I had no excuse to nullify the literal rendering of his book. Personally, I decided that due to my investigation I had no choice but to err on the side of a literal reading of the Bible creation account. Since then, the idea that the Hebrews wrote and safeguarded the actual history of the world has absolutely taken me off guard. I even see God in a brand new way. I wonder at him more. I fear him more. His power to create and cover his tracks leaves me musing often as to his divine purposes for mankind. Faith has become a cherished word to me. Never before had I understood how important it was to him. No wonder he created and stepped back into the shadows to hide, only occasionally visiting. He wants faith in him to be the basis on which any heart is purified and gains entrance into what he has prepared.

Again, how sure are you? For my part, I am no longer sure about long ages. If you ask, I will be more than happy to show you why.

[technomage]

Are you sure? How sure?

It's quite rude to answer a question with a question, a2a.

Yes, to answer your question, I am quite sure. Now, please be so kind as to answer mine, then, if you wish, you can bring up any doubts you may have about the dilemma.

[technomage]

Again, how sure are you? For my part, I am no longer sure about long ages. If you ask, I will be more than happy to show you why.

Ever heard of peer review?

The stage awaits.