Craig makes a compelling argument. - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

Craig makes a compelling argument.

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

1 2

Page 2 of 2

1 2

04-29-2011 , 06:31 PM

#26

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHighFlop

Yeah, but some humans have to live in a larger universe anyway. It maybe is the only universe in which this version of yourself makes this argument ("wtf big universe!"), but it has to happen at least once anyway. (the proof is that we're here to see it)

You're still restating the anthropic principle in a different form, which tries to allow for God, when it clearly has nothing to do.

I don't think so. I have always accepted the multiverse universe model as a valid explaination for the apparent fine tunning of the universe. I just see Craigs argument as possibly poking holes in it(I'm just not familiar with the underlying theories to know for sure).

What I have observed on this forum is people putting forth an anti-anthropic principle....which tries to reject the existence of God.

Quote

04-29-2011 , 07:03 PM

#27

JackHighFlop

adept

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 983

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

The original anthropic principle has nothing to do with God. It's you who is trying to twist it to allow for it.

Quote

04-29-2011 , 07:03 PM

#28

Deorum

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...ane-Craig-/640

He claims that if the apparent fine tuning of our universe is the cause of random happenstance, then our universe is much more likely to be on the smaller side than the larger. I have to agree with him.

So given the laws of physics as we know them and how we currently speculate them, does the fact that our universe is so large point to the existence of God?

Even if he is correct, the answer to your question is still no. And he knows it. And you know it. Shame on both of you.

Quote

04-29-2011 , 10:54 PM

#29

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

What I have observed on this forum is people putting forth an anti-anthropic principle....which tries to reject the existence of God.

laughing out loud

Quote

04-29-2011 , 11:32 PM

#30

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

The observable universe is large compared to what? Many inflationary models tell us that the total universe is much, much larger than the observable horizon, so it might be small on the scales relevant for the problem.

As for fine tuning, it is not clear that anything in the standard model is fine tuned. It is not very likely that all standard model parameters are independent and the ones that are might not require high degrees of fine tuning at all

Quote

04-30-2011 , 12:23 AM

#31

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,204

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

I don't think so. I have always accepted the multiverse universe model as a valid explaination for the apparent fine tunning of the universe. I just see Craigs argument as possibly poking holes in it(I'm just not familiar with the underlying theories to know for sure).

What I have observed on this forum is people putting forth an anti-anthropic principle....which tries to reject the existence of God.

And yet, here we are, with a thread titled "Craig makes a compelling argument."

stu gonna stu

Quote

04-30-2011 , 11:08 AM

#32

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

I'd like to know what is the average size of an inflationary patch predicted by the theory. From that information I could then make a statement as to whether the actual universe is unusually large or unusually small.

Quote

04-30-2011 , 11:13 AM

#33

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by loK2thabrain

And yet, here we are, with a thread titled "Craig makes a compelling argument."

stu gonna stu

I was a lot more fond of Craigs argument before I started this thread. However the discussion has caused me to lessen my enthusiasm. I realized I don't know enough about the theory to assume large inflationary patches are as common or more common then small ones.

Quote

04-30-2011 , 12:32 PM

#34

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Found my answer.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...Alan-Guth-/865

Quote

04-30-2011 , 01:00 PM

#35

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

There isn't a clear answer to your question, since inflation is more a group of models, not all of which we know about, rather than a specific theory. But a huge total universe much larger than the observable universe does seem to fall out fairly generically when you try to make inflationary models match to observations. This is far from an air tight proof though.

Quote

04-30-2011 , 05:21 PM

#36

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

There isn't a clear answer to your question

Actually, there is. And Stu Pidasso on 2+2's RGT forum through collaboration with William Lane Craig on a creationist think tank website has figured it out:

Quote:

if the apparent fine tuning of our universe is the cause of random happenstance, then our universe is much more likely to be on the smaller side than the larger. I have to agree with him.

Why haven't the worlds astronomers and cosmologists been apprised of this? Their data is so clear and their experimentation so rigorous.

Quote

04-30-2011 , 05:29 PM

#37

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Everyone makes mistakes, but this seems to be an obvious pattern with you going on for literally years now. Isn't that something you should have known before making this thread? It's quite central to the OP don't you think? And before characterizing the argument as "compelling"? Or do you just categorize any sort of argument that favors the existence of a god, involving any sort of cosmic phenomena, as "compelling"? Because that's sure as hell what it seems from my view.

Quote

05-01-2011 , 04:26 PM

#38

sockhead2

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 573

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Okay so you accept(at least for discussion sake) that from our prespective this universe appears to be fine tuned for life like us. Why is it so big then? If we are just one of an infinite number of randomly generated universe why did we end up in such a huge one when a much much much smaller universe is all that would be required for fine tuning of life of our sort?

I think his claim is complete looney nonsense. I just don't agree with his conclusions. I do not think it makes any more or less sense for the universe to be "smaller," "bigger," or the size it is now, given the premise that it was fine tuned (by Jesus, right?) to support human life.

Furthermore, I'm no physicist, but I am skeptical that the notion of our universe being smaller but still the same (producing humans as we know them) is actually meaningful.

I guess I should disclose that I'm one of those "the universe does not appear fine tuned" people you told to stay away, but I am nevertheless trying to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the conversation.

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last