The Plausibility Argument (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
Yes, it really is.
It isn't used as a cop out or something to define anything, it's only used to say that if there are competing arguments, the one that is less complicated is usually the correct one. It doesn't define anything, and is not a theory for anything.
It is just used as a rubric to find the definition or theory.
That is what my PhD is in.
It isn't used as a cop out or something to define anything, it's only used to say that if there are competing arguments, the one that is less complicated is usually the correct one. It doesn't define anything, and is not a theory for anything.
It is just used as a rubric to find the definition or theory.
That is what my PhD is in.
Occam's Razor is one of those things that sounds meaningful to the uninitiated on a superficial level, but its use typically indicates someone who lacks logical legs to stand on.
Kind of like an English lit major who stumbles on a physics conference and says "string theory" every other sentence in order to try to sound knowledgeable.
Sure that ain't Phat Dick, son?
Kind of like an English lit major who stumbles on a physics conference and says "string theory" every other sentence in order to try to sound knowledgeable.
Sure that ain't Phat Dick, son?
Amazing. Fine, I'll put it into a much clearer perspective for you.
After the discovery of the theory of the 'Big Bang', many scientists including Einstein refuted it immiediately because of its clear religious implications. Time is a created dimension which implies something natural of supernatural(god) must have created it, something or someone that is outside time and space. Scientists then invented numerous theories of how the big bang was created including these theories below in order to completely avoid the religious implications.
First, I will leave you with two quotes.
"The editor of the prestigious weekly science periodical, Nature, John Maddox, wrote an editorial entitled, "Down with the Big Bang," where he hoped for the downfall of the Big Bang model, because in it, he found it to be "philosophically unacceptable"1 and believes, theological creationists find "ample justification" for their creationist creed in it.
Christopher Isham observes:
"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Stephan Hawking, in his discussion of the beginning of time says that it, "smacks of divine intervention."
It is obvious from these statements that the Big Bang does have theological implications. As alternative theories continue to fail scientific tests, even more extreme and complicated theories are proposed. Many of these new theories (such as the multiverse theory) are constructed so that they are not scientifically testable. This appeal to metaphysics (disguised religion) has even been recognized by other scientists.
Going back to the anthropic priniciple.
Parameter -------------------------Max deviation
Ground state of He, Be, C, O-----+-4%
Mass of nuetron--------------------+-0.1%
Electric proton ratio----------------+-1*10^27
Electro magnetic force-------------+-1*10^40
Expansion rate of the universe----+-1*10^55
Cosmological constant--------------+-1*10^120
That the universe seems to be designed specifically for human life has been called the anthropic principle. Depending upon their philosophical outlook, scientists hold to either the "weak" or "strong" anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle states that the apparent design of the universe is an illusion, and that there must be some undiscovered underlying principle that explains why the universe seems to be designed. The strong anthropic principle states that the underlying reason that the universe appears to be designed is because it has been designed by the ultimate Intelligent Designer - God.
How do we determine which version of the anthropic principle is correct? The standard way to test any theory is to gather data and see which version fits the data better. So far, the strong anthropic principle fits the data better. For example, the last physical constant mentioned in the table above was not discovered until a few years ago, and it is, by far, the most constrained constant discovered to date. Initial observations suggested that the value is the closest value to zero (within 1 part in 10120) known in the universe. Subsequent observations suggest that it may be closer to 1 part in 10240. The degree of fine tuning has led some scientists to make the statement:
"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."1
Here is a little table to show you the maximum deviation possible to support life. In some instances, changing the constants more than the amount indicated results in a universe that doesn't even contain matter. In many other instances, only hydrogen or light elements would exist (making life impossible). Changing the last two parameters changes the longevity of the universe. Many of these perturbations would result in the universe that would have ended billions of years ago.
Parameter-------------------Probability
Galaxy Size------------------0.1
Galaxy type------------------0.1
Galaxy location--------------0.1
Supernovae erruptions------0.01
White dwarf binaries---------0.01
The galaxy location is important, since most galaxies are part of much larger galaxy clusters. We are in a very small galaxy cluster (known as the "local group"), in which we are the "big guys" among the members of the cluster. The closest galaxy to ours is Andromeda, which is 2 million light years distant. This may seem like a large distance (and it is relative to other galaxy clusters), but even so, we are scheduled for collision with Andromeda in 3 billion years. In fact, the Andromeda galaxy is closing on our galaxy at 500,000 kilometers per hour. This pace will accelerate until the two galaxies collide in 3 billion years. According to astrophysicist Chris Mihos of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, "It will be a major car wreck, and we're the Yugo in this one."3 Other galaxy clusters are much more dense then ours, resulting in frequent galactic collisions. When galaxies collide, bad things happen to stellar and planetary orbits. The long term stability of our Solar System and galaxy would not be possible in most other galaxy clusters.
All stars are formed in nebulae and our Sun is no exception. In order to gain enough heavy elements to form planets, our system must have formed close to a recent supernova. Heavy elements were not formed during the Big Bang. They are only formed inside the furnaces of stars and distributed through supernova events. Carl Sagan used to have a famous saying in his Cosmos series on PBS,* "We are star stuff." He had a unique way of saying it that I can still visualize today. His point was (also explained in the series) that everything that we are made of was distributed during the explosion of a large nearby star. If the solar nebula was too far from the supernova event, insufficient heavy elements would have been present for life chemistry. If the supernova event occurred too early, then the heavy elements would have been dispersed before the Solar System would have formed. If the supernova event occurred too late, then the nebula would not contain enough heavy elements for life chemistry. In addition, it is possible that the supernova event itself could destroy all life.
White dwarf binaries are necessary to form the element fluorine, which is required by living organisms. Since this element is only formed in these kinds of stars, they must have been present near where the Solar System formed.4*
Other possibilities.
Many scientists had originally thought that the universe might be infinite and eternal. However, there was a major problem with the theory. If the universe were infinite, the amount of light falling on the earth would also be infinite (assuming an approximately uniform density of galaxies throughout the universe. The reason for this is that the volume of the universe increases 8-fold with doubling of distance, while the decrease of light is only 4-fold with the doubling of the distance. The result is that the amount of light falling in the earth would double every time the size of the universe is doubled. Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not expect the sky to be dark at night. Since the night sky is dark, we know that the universe could not be infinite.
The steady state universe theory claimed that the universe was eternal and that galaxies and stars were born throughout the universe over time. The theory ran up against the reality of the observations of the universe. There are no stars greater than 14-16 billion years old, even though small stars can have a lifetimes greater than 30 billion years. In addition, all the galaxies we see are fully formed. The only "young" galaxies we see are those that are at the limits of the age of the universe (very far away). In reality, because of relativity, in looking at young galaxies, we are looking at galaxies that were forming only 1 billion years after the Big Bang event (it has taken the light 12 billion years to reach the earth). Because of these problems, there are virtually no cosmologists today who believe in the steady state universe.
Oscillating Universe - The Big Bang implies a universe which is created, therefore the need for a creator. Scientists who didn't want to acknowledge the need for a creator developed the oscillating universe model to attempt to get around the creation of the universe. This model stated that the universe explodes, contracts, then explodes and contracts, ad infinitum.
Although this theory did not completely eliminate the need for a creator, it could put his creation event into an almost infinite past. Many eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age) state that everything, including the universe undergoes reincarnation.
The Hindu scriptures state that the universe is successively born every 4.32 billion years. Given the age of the universe (15-18 billion years), this value is off by a factor of only 4, which looked very attractive to scientists in the 1970's. The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity.
Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang (see next slide for explanation).
After the discovery of the theory of the 'Big Bang', many scientists including Einstein refuted it immiediately because of its clear religious implications. Time is a created dimension which implies something natural of supernatural(god) must have created it, something or someone that is outside time and space. Scientists then invented numerous theories of how the big bang was created including these theories below in order to completely avoid the religious implications.
First, I will leave you with two quotes.
"The editor of the prestigious weekly science periodical, Nature, John Maddox, wrote an editorial entitled, "Down with the Big Bang," where he hoped for the downfall of the Big Bang model, because in it, he found it to be "philosophically unacceptable"1 and believes, theological creationists find "ample justification" for their creationist creed in it.
Christopher Isham observes:
"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
Stephan Hawking, in his discussion of the beginning of time says that it, "smacks of divine intervention."
It is obvious from these statements that the Big Bang does have theological implications. As alternative theories continue to fail scientific tests, even more extreme and complicated theories are proposed. Many of these new theories (such as the multiverse theory) are constructed so that they are not scientifically testable. This appeal to metaphysics (disguised religion) has even been recognized by other scientists.
Going back to the anthropic priniciple.
Parameter -------------------------Max deviation
Ground state of He, Be, C, O-----+-4%
Mass of nuetron--------------------+-0.1%
Electric proton ratio----------------+-1*10^27
Electro magnetic force-------------+-1*10^40
Expansion rate of the universe----+-1*10^55
Cosmological constant--------------+-1*10^120
That the universe seems to be designed specifically for human life has been called the anthropic principle. Depending upon their philosophical outlook, scientists hold to either the "weak" or "strong" anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle states that the apparent design of the universe is an illusion, and that there must be some undiscovered underlying principle that explains why the universe seems to be designed. The strong anthropic principle states that the underlying reason that the universe appears to be designed is because it has been designed by the ultimate Intelligent Designer - God.
How do we determine which version of the anthropic principle is correct? The standard way to test any theory is to gather data and see which version fits the data better. So far, the strong anthropic principle fits the data better. For example, the last physical constant mentioned in the table above was not discovered until a few years ago, and it is, by far, the most constrained constant discovered to date. Initial observations suggested that the value is the closest value to zero (within 1 part in 10120) known in the universe. Subsequent observations suggest that it may be closer to 1 part in 10240. The degree of fine tuning has led some scientists to make the statement:
"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."1
Here is a little table to show you the maximum deviation possible to support life. In some instances, changing the constants more than the amount indicated results in a universe that doesn't even contain matter. In many other instances, only hydrogen or light elements would exist (making life impossible). Changing the last two parameters changes the longevity of the universe. Many of these perturbations would result in the universe that would have ended billions of years ago.
Parameter-------------------Probability
Galaxy Size------------------0.1
Galaxy type------------------0.1
Galaxy location--------------0.1
Supernovae erruptions------0.01
White dwarf binaries---------0.01
The galaxy location is important, since most galaxies are part of much larger galaxy clusters. We are in a very small galaxy cluster (known as the "local group"), in which we are the "big guys" among the members of the cluster. The closest galaxy to ours is Andromeda, which is 2 million light years distant. This may seem like a large distance (and it is relative to other galaxy clusters), but even so, we are scheduled for collision with Andromeda in 3 billion years. In fact, the Andromeda galaxy is closing on our galaxy at 500,000 kilometers per hour. This pace will accelerate until the two galaxies collide in 3 billion years. According to astrophysicist Chris Mihos of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, "It will be a major car wreck, and we're the Yugo in this one."3 Other galaxy clusters are much more dense then ours, resulting in frequent galactic collisions. When galaxies collide, bad things happen to stellar and planetary orbits. The long term stability of our Solar System and galaxy would not be possible in most other galaxy clusters.
All stars are formed in nebulae and our Sun is no exception. In order to gain enough heavy elements to form planets, our system must have formed close to a recent supernova. Heavy elements were not formed during the Big Bang. They are only formed inside the furnaces of stars and distributed through supernova events. Carl Sagan used to have a famous saying in his Cosmos series on PBS,* "We are star stuff." He had a unique way of saying it that I can still visualize today. His point was (also explained in the series) that everything that we are made of was distributed during the explosion of a large nearby star. If the solar nebula was too far from the supernova event, insufficient heavy elements would have been present for life chemistry. If the supernova event occurred too early, then the heavy elements would have been dispersed before the Solar System would have formed. If the supernova event occurred too late, then the nebula would not contain enough heavy elements for life chemistry. In addition, it is possible that the supernova event itself could destroy all life.
White dwarf binaries are necessary to form the element fluorine, which is required by living organisms. Since this element is only formed in these kinds of stars, they must have been present near where the Solar System formed.4*
Other possibilities.
Many scientists had originally thought that the universe might be infinite and eternal. However, there was a major problem with the theory. If the universe were infinite, the amount of light falling on the earth would also be infinite (assuming an approximately uniform density of galaxies throughout the universe. The reason for this is that the volume of the universe increases 8-fold with doubling of distance, while the decrease of light is only 4-fold with the doubling of the distance. The result is that the amount of light falling in the earth would double every time the size of the universe is doubled. Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not expect the sky to be dark at night. Since the night sky is dark, we know that the universe could not be infinite.
The steady state universe theory claimed that the universe was eternal and that galaxies and stars were born throughout the universe over time. The theory ran up against the reality of the observations of the universe. There are no stars greater than 14-16 billion years old, even though small stars can have a lifetimes greater than 30 billion years. In addition, all the galaxies we see are fully formed. The only "young" galaxies we see are those that are at the limits of the age of the universe (very far away). In reality, because of relativity, in looking at young galaxies, we are looking at galaxies that were forming only 1 billion years after the Big Bang event (it has taken the light 12 billion years to reach the earth). Because of these problems, there are virtually no cosmologists today who believe in the steady state universe.
Oscillating Universe - The Big Bang implies a universe which is created, therefore the need for a creator. Scientists who didn't want to acknowledge the need for a creator developed the oscillating universe model to attempt to get around the creation of the universe. This model stated that the universe explodes, contracts, then explodes and contracts, ad infinitum.
Although this theory did not completely eliminate the need for a creator, it could put his creation event into an almost infinite past. Many eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age) state that everything, including the universe undergoes reincarnation.
The Hindu scriptures state that the universe is successively born every 4.32 billion years. Given the age of the universe (15-18 billion years), this value is off by a factor of only 4, which looked very attractive to scientists in the 1970's. The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity.
Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang (see next slide for explanation).
I'm really lost in the clutter of irreverent info here.
Clear religious implications? I think people would jump to that conclusion. But people do that when they see a few folds in taco and say the tortilla contains the holy visage of the Virgin Mary. So I am unclear of any relevance here.
Meanwhile, we're having our minds bent right now at the prospect that the expanding universe is accelerating. This concept itself dwarfs any debate over a Big Bang to the realm of quaint and trivial banality, given the implications.
Even so, you don't need to inject religious discussion at any stage for the facts to be found and for explanations to proceed.
Nice for him. But were talking about science, not philosophy. Next...
David Beckham in a tight thong puts a number of heterosexual physicists at obvious unease too.
Hawking also says the music of Snoop Dogg's "Dogghouse" smacks of Francisco Rodriguez, hence the lawsuit.
:wth:
Again with the principles? We've already pointed out the feeble value in weighting arguments on the Principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.
Do we have to change this to the official ignoratio elenchi thread?
Clear religious implications? I think people would jump to that conclusion. But people do that when they see a few folds in taco and say the tortilla contains the holy visage of the Virgin Mary. So I am unclear of any relevance here.
Meanwhile, we're having our minds bent right now at the prospect that the expanding universe is accelerating. This concept itself dwarfs any debate over a Big Bang to the realm of quaint and trivial banality, given the implications.
Even so, you don't need to inject religious discussion at any stage for the facts to be found and for explanations to proceed.
Nice for him. But were talking about science, not philosophy. Next...
David Beckham in a tight thong puts a number of heterosexual physicists at obvious unease too.
Hawking also says the music of Snoop Dogg's "Dogghouse" smacks of Francisco Rodriguez, hence the lawsuit.
:wth:
Again with the principles? We've already pointed out the feeble value in weighting arguments on the Principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.
Do we have to change this to the official ignoratio elenchi thread?
I'm sorry Swag, but if you failed to see the clear religious implications involved when discussing the Big Bang then this entire argument is entirely and completely useless. I have asked the same question already in different context ofcourse over five times in this thread already. No one can refute what I said with a logical statement but rather do so with a dismissive attitude that is becoming extremely annoying.
I will do it again. I hope this will spark a meaningful answer for once. I am not talking about scientific evidence here, I am merely talking about reason.
The Big Bang is a phenomena that largely suggests the existence of a Creator. If you disagree with this statement. Read on. The reason being, since the Big Bang must have occured at some point in time, meaning in the first dimension in time, this logically implies that a creator, regardless in nature, has triggered this event to happen. This Creator is outside time and space(A second or possibly third dimension of time), therefore, this supernatural or natural force could have been the only reason the Big Bang occured in the first place. Now, I posted all other possible theories that all had evident logical flaws.
Now if you still do not even acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural force, kindly stop reading my posts in this thread.
I will do it again. I hope this will spark a meaningful answer for once. I am not talking about scientific evidence here, I am merely talking about reason.
The Big Bang is a phenomena that largely suggests the existence of a Creator. If you disagree with this statement. Read on. The reason being, since the Big Bang must have occured at some point in time, meaning in the first dimension in time, this logically implies that a creator, regardless in nature, has triggered this event to happen. This Creator is outside time and space(A second or possibly third dimension of time), therefore, this supernatural or natural force could have been the only reason the Big Bang occured in the first place. Now, I posted all other possible theories that all had evident logical flaws.
Now if you still do not even acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural force, kindly stop reading my posts in this thread.
Juve Rev, I'm going to do something for you.
This line represents what is going on, and what goes on:
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
It is a line of far one way versus far the other versus those in the center of anything.
So this is your argument:
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
Jesus Freaks-------------Those who don't give a fuck------------Hardcore Atheists
You--------------------------------Me---------------------------------Chinks
Now you are on the far left, most are in the center, and few are on the far right.
Now those that are on the far left and those that are on the far right cannot argue. They can try, but they can't. They need to be taken out of every equation.
The point of arguing is to make someone see something in a different point of view or sway their opinion of something, but to argue it, one must present stuff that is A) unbiased B) factually represented C) not fucking gay D) not fucking retarded and E) not so dumb people give examples as to how it can be refuted and still have the dumbass who posted it say NO NO 3+4 IS 893.....
Your opinions are never going to sway because you suck Jesus dick, and that's cool, that's all you. But most of us live our lives through a more less complicated life. We aren't afraid we are alone, blah blah whatever. But don't come in here are argue tripe-esque banter nonsense, because it makes you look like Pope Nazi used to be.
Think of juries, they interview the people to be on juries (they have those where you live, right?) and reject or accept them based on their bias. If they know the defendant (the left side of the line) they are rejected, if they know the plaintiff (the right side of the line) they are rejected. It is only when someone who has neither views right or left is selected.
So if I'm curt with you, it's for a reason. I didn't want to argue in this thread because religion is dumb in my opinion. God is dumb in my opinion, and I'm lazy, in everyone else's opinion, plus I don't give a fuckX10^123.
So pretty please, with sugar on top, shut the fuck up.
This line represents what is going on, and what goes on:
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
It is a line of far one way versus far the other versus those in the center of anything.
So this is your argument:
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
Jesus Freaks-------------Those who don't give a fuck------------Hardcore Atheists
You--------------------------------Me---------------------------------Chinks
Now you are on the far left, most are in the center, and few are on the far right.
Now those that are on the far left and those that are on the far right cannot argue. They can try, but they can't. They need to be taken out of every equation.
The point of arguing is to make someone see something in a different point of view or sway their opinion of something, but to argue it, one must present stuff that is A) unbiased B) factually represented C) not fucking gay D) not fucking retarded and E) not so dumb people give examples as to how it can be refuted and still have the dumbass who posted it say NO NO 3+4 IS 893.....
Your opinions are never going to sway because you suck Jesus dick, and that's cool, that's all you. But most of us live our lives through a more less complicated life. We aren't afraid we are alone, blah blah whatever. But don't come in here are argue tripe-esque banter nonsense, because it makes you look like Pope Nazi used to be.
Think of juries, they interview the people to be on juries (they have those where you live, right?) and reject or accept them based on their bias. If they know the defendant (the left side of the line) they are rejected, if they know the plaintiff (the right side of the line) they are rejected. It is only when someone who has neither views right or left is selected.
So if I'm curt with you, it's for a reason. I didn't want to argue in this thread because religion is dumb in my opinion. God is dumb in my opinion, and I'm lazy, in everyone else's opinion, plus I don't give a fuckX10^123.
So pretty please, with sugar on top, shut the fuck up.
You talk about unbiased opinions? First, you are very much inclined to the far right of your little diagram. Second, the entire idea of what I'm posting here comes from a scientist who was an atheist untill his mid twenties. Because of certain theories and certain people he met, he shifted away from atheism into agnotisticism. He studied the subject even more throrughly and finally concluded that there is a god. Now, this is only one person. I am not saying this person is right or wring. But since you are so keen in listening to unbiased opinions, here is a person(Francis Collins) among many people I can name that have converted from atheis to theism on the very basis of logic.
If you fail to see the logic, I don't care to be quite honest. I just posted this thread in response to a point of view Martin posted a couple of months back. I don't care whether you are a deist, atheist, theist, or in your case "I don't give a fuck". I am posting an idea or a theory, you can either understand it or not. If you don't like it, kindly shut the fuck up and go post in another thread. It's not like I am making personal phone calls to your mother's house asking for you. You chose to post in this thread, either respect one's opinion or fuck off.
Another thing, just clear up on something you rambled on about earlier. Just another common logical error I'm used to by some people here. You say that I'm an extreme Christian, while this is not true, I am willing to accept this for the sake of argument. Please oh masterful Burke, explain to me what fucking difference it makes if it was me who proposed this theory or simply someone that had no inclination to theism whatsoever. A theory is a theory, it is an idea, it does not fucking matter who talks about it or who suggests it, the significance of it is is it's rationality and it's philosophical validity. Argue against the theory, do not argue against me you dumb fuck.