• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

#133: Sept. - Nov. 2014 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

I'm going to provide a link to a Christian website which provides arguments for the reasons we incline to earlier dating for new testament books rather than later.The same applies in terms of authorship. Just click the "dating" box on the link page provided.
The link didn't work. It doesn't matter what you incline to believe, to be honest. It's what you're able to show is true. At least, if you're wanting to say that your belief is justified. An "inclination" from historical scholars is not strong enough. First and most obvious, they are already inclined in that direction, so naturally they will form reasons to support that presupposition. But again, the inclination doesn't matter. You need something more solid.
What's interesting is where attempts are made to create computer simulations of neo-darwinian evolution it appears the programmers factor in active information into the program to achieve their "goal."
There is a tremendous amount of information in a bleak rock-laden landscape. At least, in the sense that a phenotype must be able to interact with it in any beneficial way. The environment is the parameter.

The programmers also have to "program" the evolutionary algorithm. It is essentially a computerized model of physical processes. Short of creating a perfect simulation of every law of physics as well as the environment, that's the only way to do it. So yes, a great deal of information is put in place for the program to run.
In the link you provided ,something of this sort is occurring with the "selection" criteria in the example given with the playing cards.
The selection criteria is determined by the environment. A comparative analogy would be: pick an organism that needs 20% oxygen in the air to breathe, or one that needs 40%. You have to model some things with demonstrative programs or games.

The question is, are you seeking to understand the mechanism, or seeking to find misunderstanding? Any misunderstanding we the laymen could uncover at our level of education on the topic is merely that- a misunderstanding. The true issues are much much deeper, and not in conflict with the theory. The misunderstandings you're dredging up on the internet are an excellent example of confirmation bias at work.
It's over an hour long but if you pick up about 50 minutes in you will get the examination of such simulations, and the question arises how unguided processes square with what they have to program in, to get the desired result.
Flann, I can't watch videos the majority of the day. If you can provide a transcript, I'd be happy to take a look.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Thanks Interbane,
The link I gave to the"be thinking" webpage wasn't perfect but on the bottom left of the page there's a large box titled; "Dating the new testament." If you clicked that you would find the article. I think there are good reasons given for early dating and authorship.
For most Christians there are multiple strands of reasons why we believe what we do.
Richard Carrier, espouses what he believes is good methodology yet it seems to me he abandons this without realizing it at times, as I've suggested previously.
So with the "useful fiction produced by the brain" notion of the passing of time.What is immediately and directly experienced is bypassed in favour of a particular theory of time, which is challenged by many.
And empirical evidence is practically abandoned when he strongly favours mutiverse theory.
Again, he is building on notions of the necessity of going from simple to complex when he favours the single chaos point origin of the multiverse. I'm not convinced that simple to complex is necessarily required or is some kind of universal law.

I think when it comes to the whole debate on evolution, I'm not qualified in terms of understanding highly technical specialised areas of knowledge ,to argue these things,as well as others. R J Marks is maintaining that evolution simulations are flawed if not downright cheating in their programs.
Usually there is a goal or target and the programs are not unguided and goal less as evolution is supposed to be. How primary information and meta information in D.N.A. would evolve together and what kind of unguided process or environmental factors could select for this, I do not know. But as I say, I'm no expert here.
Anyway here's a link to a written examination of Richard Dawkin's supposed Darwinian modeled simulation and the subject in general. Evolutionary Simulation; is the title. http://www.evoinfo.org/weasel/
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

For most Christians there are multiple strands of reasons why we believe what we do.
The multiple reasons you've shown me are the same ones I've seen many times before, and none of them justify belief. My criteria is to blame. I wish there were justification as well.
And empirical evidence is practically abandoned when he strongly favours mutiverse theory.
I wouldn't say abandoned. He ranks the methods as he sees them in terms of priority and applicability. The further we get from the foundation, the more tenuous the knowledge, hence the weaker the method. Regarding an endpoint cosmology, that means we're at the bottom of the list. This doesn't mean everything above is abandoned. It means that it doesn't(yet) apply. Well, they all apply in small parts, but without any of the strength of a more certain theory such as general relativity or evolution. I think he mentions this in his book, to be fair. Regarding eternalist version of time, it's strongly supported by method(math/logic). Why do you think otherwise? Yes, there are people who disagree with Carrier, but that doesn't mean the version he champions is false, or that he has abandoned method.
Again, he is building on notions of the necessity of going from simple to complex when he favours the single chaos point origin of the multiverse. I'm not convinced that simple to complex is necessarily required or is some kind of universal law.
Going from simple to complex isn't a starting principle. It's a pattern we see in nature, and if it is a principle, it's one reached as a conclusion, rather than a starting condition. We know the elements start from simple and go to complex. We know life goes from simple to complex. Why would this not also apply to universes? While this may not be a law, it's also not the primary principle in reaching the conclusion he came to. It's a guiding principle, side by side with others. The multiverse theory could also be wrong, and some other explanation may turn up that doesn't show the evolution from simple to complex. But without additional information to narrow down the results, it's useful as a guiding principle, don't you agree?
Anyway here's a link to a written examination of Richard Dawkin's supposed Darwinian modeled simulation and the subject in general. Evolutionary Simulation; is the title. http://www.evoinfo.org/weasel/
There is nothing wrong with Dawkins' program in the link. Dembski and Marks claim he used an "oracle" to lock letters into place after they're found, as if there's something wrong with it. But that's precisely what the environment does when a beneficial gene arises! Since it is beneficial, it survives, by virtue of the survivability it lends to the organism that holds it. Flann, do you understand how the evolutionary algorithm works? If you truly understand the mechanism, and can understand how it would play out over time, these sorts of objections fall to the wind. It's like watching a stream move a small amount of dirt, then extrapolating a million years into the future and picturing the potential canyon that could be formed. There is undeniable, inevitable math behind all of it. But your understanding must meet it halfway. As I said before, if you keep looking for ways to misunderstand, that's all you'll be left with is misunderstanding.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

I wouldn't say abandoned. He ranks the methods as he sees them in terms of priority and applicability. The further we get from the foundation, the more tenuous the knowledge, hence the weaker the method. Regarding an endpoint cosmology, that means we're at the bottom of the list.
Sorry, but where did Carrier present the multiverse hypotheses he presented as being at "the bottom of the list" of our methods of knowledge?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

III.3.3 Modern Multiverse Theory <- In there somewhere. I only have the audio book, and I know I'm right, so I'm not going to get you a quote. :razz2:
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Here is Carrier misrepresenting what Newton's full consideration of gravity actually was:
"Thousands of years later, of course, a fellow by the name Isaac Newton figured it out: gravity. The whole complex order of the solar system was entirely explicable by appealing to a single, monotonous, mindless force. No appeal to God was really needed
That was a categorical misrepresentation of Newton's intellectual position regarding gravity.
It's brazenly arrogant and absurd to so blatantly misrepresent a genius like Newton.
Newton would not have described any cosmological notion as being "mindless"
This is Carrier's worldview injected where it does not belong.


Carrier: (emphasis is Carrier's)
And only a multiverse can explain where our luck came from. For it explains all fixed order
This is another bombastic claim by Carrier, asserted without sufficient evidence of any kind.
A "multiverse" has not been scientifically proven, and can not be due to many reasons, one being the limit of physics to accurately model an infinite amount of universes.

It follows that a multiverse hypothesis that can not get off the ground, also can not explain "where our luck came from"
That's an equally stupid assertion.
This is Carrier's worldview.

People with the same worldview are having their personal biases reaffirmed (that ol' nasty confirmation bias in action)
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Interbane wrote:III.3.3 Modern Multiverse Theory <- In there somewhere. I only have the audio book, and I know I'm right, so I'm not going to get you a quote. :razz2:

Im sure one of your metaphysical / naturalist homeboys around here can help you out.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Carrier:
But as we've already shown (in section 1113.1) something must exist without any explanation at all, so it might as well be a multiverse
That is metaphysical speculation, attached to a "lucky guess" preferential - "it might as well be a multiverse"
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Carrier:
(emphasis mine)
The multiverse explains everything that exists, and so even from the start it is just as good as "God Did it" It is even better than that,
since the multiverse fits and follows from known scientific facts
, and it makes the exact features of this universe highly probable..,
Not only is what I underlined a blatant lie, it also is a total disservice to science - particularly cosmology.

The "facts" of the observable universe do not justify in any way the incredible inductive leap that Carrier is attempting to dress as scientific fact.
Also, the KNOWN laws of nature and the OBSERVATION of observable phenomena of our universe are what gives us clues of its features.

"Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" make up over 96% of the observable universe.
We are familiar with about 4% of the features of the observable universe. Beyond our horizon is beyond the reach of science.
Call that a "brute fact" if you will.

Dark matter alone and its effects on galaxy clusters (increase rotation) might be another law of the universe that will change the law of gravity as currently understood.

We don't know the exact features of this universe.
We don't know what features a multiverse should create in our universe. Far from it.
Ask any cosmologist that has the discipline and maturity to not let his worldview seep in to science, and moves to promote it as being scientific fact.

Carrier's tone here sounds as if he is mad at a God that he so desperately wants to replace with his own metaphysical Being - ie an Multiverse wrapped up nicely by science for him to believe in.
Last edited by ant on Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Carrier on Chaotic Inflation:
Such an ensemble of universes is formally called a "multiverse." That can be misleading, since in neither of the most plausible theories is there really any more than one 'universe" per se. In Chaotic Inflation, different 'universes' are really just different regions of the same universe, even when in some cases these other regions are hidden in black holes.

Chaotic Inflation hypothesizes randomly distributed "scalar fields" at different patches of a universe.
Bubbles (baby universes) are connected by worm holes (that act like an umbilical cord) that are in turn connected to a mother universe - the first universe that gave birth to us all

The only scalar field that has been observed in nature is the Higgs field. But the Higgs field has not evidenced the effects as described above. Meaning, it has not been close to being determined that scalar fields cause the eventual birthing of baby universes.
Theoretically, baby universes would have their own laws, which would eventually make them distinct from a mother universe that came into existence.

There is no evidence that these regions are hidden in black holes.
Considering that Stephen Hawking has theorized that all information is completely lost in black holes, it's hard to even imagine anything being hidden inside one.


You're welcome, Interbane
Last edited by ant on Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism - by Richard Carrier”