XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.logic, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: alt.atheism, sci.skeptic   
   From: Esque"@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/31/2016 10:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   > On 1/04/2016 12:25 PM, Wm. Esque wrote:   
   >> On 3/31/2016 12:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>> On 31/03/2016 3:08 PM, Wm. Esque wrote:   
   >>>> On 3/28/2016 11:24 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>>> On 28/03/2016 12:44 PM, mur@. wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:25:56 -0400, Dale  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like   
   >>>>>>> that?   
   >>>>>>> Blind Faith?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Do only theists utilize blind faith?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>      Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious   
   >>>>>> belief.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> How do you quantify faith dependency?   
   >>>>  >   
   >>>> It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist   
   >>>> and Created the universe and life.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sylvia.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not   
   >>> exist and did no create the universe and life.   
   >>> To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be   
   >>> equal.   
   >>>   
   >> Not exactly. A few years ago I was where you are today. However, in   
   >> reading about recent discoveries concerning the universe and how it came   
   >> about, I came to the conclusion that the odds favor the involvement of   
   >> some super intellect.   
   >   
   > You talk about odds, but you offer nothing to suggest that your   
   > assessment of the odds is anything more than a choice designed to   
   > support your belief.   
    >   
   No, I don't see it that way. I was not a believer, I gave religion very   
   little thought. I went to weddings and funerals and nothing else for   
   years. I didn't know whether God existed or not and I just didn't think   
   about it. I had other things to accomplish, like getting an education.   
   So, when I came across the Anthropic Principle it set me back. It   
   bothered me at first. I knew nothing on the multiverse, so I knew of   
   no way to explain what I learned about the A.P.. I'm still not totally   
   convinced There has to be an unforeseen explanation as to why the   
   two dozen or so cosmological constants have the values they do. Perhaps   
   the theory of everything (The TOE), if and when it's discovered will   
   provide answers. I consider myself a theist, however, I can turn it   
   lose at a moment notice if certain realities are explained. I listed   
   a few below and the purpose they serve.   
   >   
   >> I am in reference to the Anthropic Principle(AP),   
   >> first advanced by a colleague of Stephen Hawkins, and Roger Penrose,   
   >> theoretical physicist Brandon Carter. While it is controversial as to   
   >> what the A.P. means, only a few scientist deny the reality of these   
   >> discoveries. These are refereed to as fundamental constants. They have   
   >> very narrow numerical values about 1% kind of things. Any slight change   
   >> in any of these values would alter the universe or prevent it from   
   >> existing.   
   >>>   
   >> Examples:   
   >>   
   >> 1)The gravitational constant: which determines strength of gravity. If   
   >> any   
   >> less then stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb   
   >> barrier to start thermonuclear fusion. No stars no sunlight.   
   >> If the gravity constant were higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel   
   >> before life could appear and evolve.   
   >> 2)The strong force coupling constant is that which holds particles   
   >> together   
   >> in atom's nucleus. If this force were weaker, then multi-proton   
   >> particles could not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element   
   >> in the   
   >> Universe.   
   >> If the strong force were stronger, elements lighter than iron would   
   >> be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, this heats core of Earth.   
   >> 3) The electromagnetic coupling constant determines the strength of   
   >> electromagnetic force which holds electrons to nucleus. If it were less,   
   >> then no electrons held in their respective valences. If stronger,   
   >> electrons will not bond with other atoms; either way, there would be no   
   >> molecules.   
   >> All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic   
   >> building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these   
   >> constants is very narrow range, only about 1 to 5% for the constants.   
   >> Beyond this range, life and particularly intelligent life)   
   >> would be impossible.   
   >>   
   >>  >   
   >> Many scientist and philosphers turn to multiverses to explain   
   >> these "fine tuned constants".   
   >>   
   >> They argue that it's possible to imagine numerous different universes   
   >> with entirely different kinds of universes each with it's own set of   
   >> fundamental constants.   
   >>   
   >> "For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have   
   >> a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form.   
   >> Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear   
   >> fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker   
   >> universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight. Why don't   
   >> those Universes exist? Why does our Universe, with its special value   
   >> exist rather than another? Is there something fundamental to our physics   
   >> that makes the present values for physical constants expected?   
   >>   
   >> This dilemma of the extremely narrow range of values for physical   
   >> constants is allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as   
   >> ourselves. If the Universe has those properties which allow life to   
   >> develop within it then there must exists one possible Universe   
   >> 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining `observers'   
   >> (theological   
   >> universe).   
   >>   
   >> Or is there an Alternative: The multiverse~ Which could explain how our   
   >> universe 'lucked out". Where there are infinite numbers of universes   
   >> each with its own set of fundamental constants the chances of at least   
   >> one universe with the necessary values for intelligent life to exist is   
   >> a matter of stasitics.   
   >>   
   >> Other universes which are very different universes (THE MULTIVERSE)is   
   >> necessary to explain how our universe just happened to have the   
   >> constants with the necessary values for life and especially intelligent   
   >> life to exist and evolve: and for the existence of our Universe.   
   >>   
   >> So, in my mind it comes down to what is the most reasonable, the   
   >> multivers, or a universe which somehow "knew" we were coming.   
   >   
   > How can you possibly decide which is the most reasonable? Even if you   
   > can decide, what's to say that the actual situation has to be the most   
   > reasonable one?   
    >   
   Frankly, I don't place much faith in the multiverse idea. We cannot   
   observe these universes, we cannot test them, we cannot travel to any of   
   them and there is no way, at present, to confirm the existence of any   
   universes, other than the one we reside in. So, to look to these   
   imaginary universes for an explanation (as to how our universe came to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)