Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #545]

Perhaps you can explain what the MECHANISM is?

By mechanism I mean the exact method by which the universe first came into existence. That is why I've been adding in parentheses (a god, natural, etc.) to indicate that there could be any number of potential mechanisms involved for how the universe first came to be.

I understood that and agreed that while there is something we identify as "mechanism" we also admit that we do not know what that mechanism is, in any fundamental way.

But that whatever that method/mechanism was it did in fact happen, and how things unfolded on Earth many billions of years later is not dependent on the exact mechanism (or method) for how the initial universe came into existence.

This is the part that makes no sense re admitting we do not know fundamentally what the nature of the mechanism is, so cannot state or even imply that the two are NOT related.

I also made the analogy to evolution in that it does not depend on the exact mechanism for how life first arose (although many anti-evolutionists try to redefine evolution and claim it should explain origin of life), only that it did by some mechanism (method) whether that is a god being, abiogenesis, etc. Same idea.

Again, there is no way that can can know this as true.

From another conversation I had in April regarding this idea;

GM: Logos – word reason plan
A force for good
viewtopic.php?p=1068076#p1068076

William: From the link;

What I am learning from this Message Generating System is that "it" is not about me or you but about allowing for opportunity for any otherwise intelligent consciousnesses to impute their intelligence into the mix.

Re non-theists who are opposed to the idea of their being an overall mind behind [invisible/not easy to detect in] our visible Universe - I would say that they do themselves a disservice in resisting contact with said mind.

The way I have come to understand things re the nature of our shared reality - is that in opting for the theory of evolution with the addition of realization of the invisible mind, exposes the enormity of said mind re the time/space said mind has had to develop within.

Alongside that, is the realization that something which initially started out as one thing, became many things - so many things that trying to place a number as to how many things - is pointless.

Clearly fragmentation occurred as the mind developed - as can be seen in the evidence of the things themselves.

So the Galaxies became "Gods" and the Gods produced off-spring which are the Suns and planets continually forming - from beginnings to middles and to ends - and in doing so, providing the parent-Gods with Data of Experience.

I don't pretend to know what it is in the way of evidence that non-theists want in order to convince them to become theists.

But I do know that this evidence I am presenting, should be enough for anyone to seriously think about changing the way they see the world.

{SOURCE}

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #546]

The entire conversation is about the FINE TUNING required for life to exist in this universe.

No ... it is about the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang in order for that event to have produced a universe like we have, in its entirety. There is no requirement that life be produced other than that this universe does have living species (at least on one planet), so duplicating it exactly would obviously also require the same living species. He even describes scenarios (other Big Bangs among the 10^10^123 possibilities) that could produce our galaxy and everything in it exactly as we have now (including life), but be different in other parts of the universe, or scenarios where other types of life might develop unlike what we know here on Earth. If you think the discussion was about the fine tuning needed for life to exist in this universe, you missed the point.

You are misrepresenting what the number means, and what the concept of what the initial conditions entails.

He blurted out that number to describe what he called the "precision" required in the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang (based on second law of thermodynamics considerations) for the event to have produced a universe exactly like ours, everywhere in it. There is no consideration of life in that huge number at all ... none. It is his estimate of the total number of possible initial conditions for the Big Bang ... only one of which resulted in the exact universe we have, across the entire universe. Considering only our galaxy, or solar system, as Penrose says in the video, makes the 10^10^123 number "ridiculously smaller" but he gives no number for that.

Now all of a sudden there is more and more talk of the initial condition(s) of the universe...but when I first mentioned it, no one knew what was going on with it.

?????????

Those other conditions wouldn't be life permitting, though.

See above (or watch the video again). He clearly describes other Big Bangs that might produce galaxies just like ours (with life) but different elsewhere, or life that is different from what we have.

I tried illustrate that point with the Walmart video, but you ignored it and i am not explaining it again.

That wasnt't relevant to the points Penrose was making.

And those odds aren't achieved by mere chance...that is the point.

They are given by Penrose from second law considerations that lead to 10^10^123 possible initial conditions for the Big Bang.

Nonsense. Without the proper fine tuning, you wouldnt even have the chemistry needed to have the right chemical bonds for atoms to even form.

Again ... watch the video again. He specifically says near the start that the "fine tuning" he is referring to is NOT the usual fine tuning of the physical constants that is more commonly discussed, but instead he refers to the fine tuning in the initial conditions of the Big Bang that resulted in it leading to a universe exactly like the one we have. Sounds like you're confusing the two fine tunings.

So, please get accurate knowledge what is meant by initial conditions and we can carry the conversation further.

I know what is meant by initial conditions in the Penrose video because he describes it. He is referring to the initial condition of the Big Bang, which we don't yet know the details of. He is using an argument from the second law of thermodynamics (as stated in the video) to estimate the total number of possible universes that could have arisen from the initial conditions of the Big Bang (ie. 10^10^123) and mainly arguing that Anthropic arguments can't explain why such high precision occurred (ie. the universe isn't here to support human life, or because it needed to be the way it is in order for life to evolve as it did).

You're presenting the 10^10^123 number as if it is the probability that a universe "permitting life" would arise from by mere chance from a Big Bang event (I'm surprised you even accept that mechanism), when that is not at all what Penrose gives that number for.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #551]

Again, there is no way that can can know this as true.

OK ... I give up. Evolution, by definition, says nothing about HOW life originated. It doesn't care or depend on that mechanism, and it makes no sense to say "there is no way that we can know this as true." It isn't a subjective question ... it is a definition. Evolution can only work once life does exist ... it makes no statements on how that happened.

If you have some scenario where the processes that unfolded on Earth after it formed 4.6 billion years ago depend on whether the universe came into existence naturally (eg. Big Bang, or other mechanism), or was created by a god, please describe how that works. You obviously think that is the case, so how about an example.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #552]

Sorry, Doc. But no point in engaging in this convo with you any further.

Why?

Because you see, you stated a couple pages back that conversations about pre-Earth (4.3 billion years) was irrelevant and even glossed over the bulk of one of my posts (which I am still salty about) because it involved the pre-Earth cosmos.

Now, here you are engaging deeper and deeper about a topic involving the initial conditions of an early universe, which precedes a 4.3 billion year old Earth.

Tsk, tsk.

Im gonna request that you engage that post of which you dismissed (most of it)...and then we can continue pushing through the convo.

Until then...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #554]

Because you see, you stated a couple pages back that conversations about pre-Earth (4.3 billion years) was irrelevant and even glossed over the bulk of one of my posts (which I am still salty about) because it involved the pre-Earth cosmos.

Which post was that? I don't see any that I didn't respond to. But I'm focusing on the 10^10^123 number because you are presenting that as a probability for a universe permitting life to arise by mere chance, and referencing Penrose's interview in the Youtube video as the source for it. That video does indeed have him state that number, but NOT for what you are claiming. He's referring to the total number of possible initial conditions for the Big Bang, and the "fine tuning" of those that would be needed to produce exactly the universe we have in its entirety (without regard to any probabilities for life developing). So until that is cleared up there's no point in debating other points.

Now, here you are engaging deeper and deeper about a topic involving the initial conditions of an early universe, which precedes a 4.3 billion year old Earth.

Tsk, tsk.

That was the entire topic of the Penrose video! And you are misrepresenting Penrose's number and using it to describe something completely different than in his video. Plus, I've said several times that the more relevant probability as far as life appearing is concerned is one that starts 4.6 billion years ago when Earth formed and considers what the chances are that life would develop given the conditions on Earth from that point forward. This is mainly because we only know about life on Earth at the moment, and can only wildly guess on the probability of it existing elsewhere in the universe. But you keep going back to the 10^10^123 number and the Big Bang (which is the only thing Penrose is talking about when he states this number). I'd be very happy to drop that whole number and argument, and start 4.6 billion years ago where we do know something about how Earth formed and how things developed.

Im gonna request that you engage that post of which you dismissed (most of it)...and then we can continue pushing through the convo.

Sure ... tell me which post you are referring to because I have no idea. What number is it?

[brunumb]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #527]

Penrose is an agnostic atheist so the figure he calculated obviously hasn't compelled him to believe in a creator god. It apparently means more to those who are already theists needing to prop up their beliefs.

"Does Roger Penrose's observation that the probability of the occurrence of a universe in which life can form is 10 to the power of 123 to 1 support the case of those who believe in God?"

One reply here: https://tinyurl.com/44zjve6a

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #546]

Yes it is what Penrose is referring to. The entire conversation is about the FINE TUNING required for life to exist in this universe.

OK ... I found the section of Penrose's book where he arrives at the 10^10^123 number:

https://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

The word "life" is nowhere to be found. This gigantic number is his estimate for the ratio of the total phase space volume of the existing universe (V), to the original phase space volume (W) at the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Again, his whole point has nothing to do with the probability that life would appear by chance in this universe, but on how finely tuned (or precise) the initial conditions of the Big Bang had to be to get exactly the universe we have, rather than some other.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #553]

If you have some scenario where the processes that unfolded on Earth after it formed 4.6 billion years ago depend on whether the universe came into existence naturally (eg. Big Bang, or other mechanism), or was created by a god, please describe how that works. You obviously think that is the case, so how about an example.

My overall point is that this does not matter as it is not an issue outside of theism and atheism. I myself simply mentioned it in answer to your own mentioning of it and think that one cannot give credence to the one and not the other.
re The Mechanisms - be they mindful or not - I would have to consider natural as it has never been explained to my why I would have to think one 'natural' and the other 'supernatural' - so either way it would be natural.

In that case, credence to either side on the issue of whether we exist within a creation or not, is very largely besides the point.

We do not know. We all can speculate, but we need to avoid making positive statements one way or the other.

It is - as you expressed - a case of giving up - waving the white flag on this particular issue.

I simply acknowledge that time is not a factor in the argument, no matter what length of time it takes for things to unfold. We certainly know that we are still within the birthing stage of something which is going to last a very long while - as measured in time - and putting horse before cart is the better option to adapt all 'round.

That is it really. I appreciate the effort you are making re your arguments. I just don't see that particular aspect as relevant and felt to say so.


I have said so, and wave my own white flag as I withdraw...

[William floats back into The Shadows...]

[We_Are_VENOM]

Which post was that? I don't see any that I didn't respond to.

You didn't need to ask "which post is that" when you wanted to find which post I gave the 10^123 figure, did you?

No.

So don't ask now.

Do some digging, it is on this thread.

But I'm focusing on the 10^10^123 number because you are presenting that as a probability for a universe permitting life to arise by mere chance, and referencing Penrose's interview in the Youtube video as the source for it. That video does indeed have him state that number, but NOT for what you are claiming. He's referring to the total number of possible initial conditions for the Big Bang, and the "fine tuning" of those that would be needed to produce exactly the universe we have in its entirety (without regard to any probabilities for life developing). So until that is cleared up there's no point in debating other points.

Um, no.

Any talk about the initial conditions of the universe are conversations on events preceding your 4.3 billion year criterion as to whether or not such convo is worthy of your time.

So lets not talk about it then.

Or you can go back and adequately respond to the rest of my post as it pertained to the initial conditions needed for any system which requires pre-tuned parameters to do work (specified tasks).

Can't get any further without that.

That was the entire topic of the Penrose video!

Hmm. I do not recall. Did I originally post that video in a response to you?

If not, then you jumped into a conversation which involved a video, a video of which subject matter did not meet your qualifications of relevancy.

Remember, anything prior to 4.3 billion years is not worth a convo hassle.

So, stick to your guns.

And you are misrepresenting Penrose's number and using it to describe something completely different than in his video.

See, that is where we disagree. Nuff said.

Plus, I've said several times that the more relevant probability as far as life appearing is concerned is one that starts 4.6 billion years ago when Earth formed and considers what the chances are that life would develop given the conditions on Earth from that point forward. This is mainly because we only know about life on Earth at the moment, and can only wildly guess on the probability of it existing elsewhere in the universe. But you keep going back to the 10^10^123 number and the Big Bang (which is the only thing Penrose is talking about when he states this number). I'd be very happy to drop that whole number and argument, and start 4.6 billion years ago where we do know something about how Earth formed and how things developed.

No more in depth convos about this until you reply to the totality of my post.

Sure ... tell me which post you are referring to because I have no idea. What number is it?

It is somewhere in the thread.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #527]

Penrose is an agnostic atheist so the figure he calculated obviously hasn't compelled him to believe in a creator god.

Penrose is an "I don't know" agnostic.

I can care less about the man's personal beliefs, I only care about the science and the math.

It apparently means more to those who are already theists needing to prop up their beliefs.

Pretty much, yeah.

"Does Roger Penrose's observation that the probability of the occurrence of a universe in which life can form is 10 to the power of 123 to 1 support the case of those who believe in God?"

One reply here: https://tinyurl.com/44zjve6a

Opinions. I can post the replies of those who agree with me. Point?

Is that all you have? Or is this yet another substance-lacking post?