• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Physicist and a Rabbi disagree with a Journalist

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,858
Reaction score
8,338
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
On Christmas Day, the Wall Street Journal posted a piece written by Eric Metaxas, "author, speaker and TV host" in which he argues that science is coming closer and closer to "proving" the existence of a Creator.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it?
Click to expand...
This has caused a bit of a kerfuffle on the internets, to say the least.

One man who disagrees, does so from the religious side of the question: Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman
A fine-tuned universe is a compelling argument for God. It's also deeply problematic.

Why? Two reasons.

1. Science is always changing.

Science is in constant flux. New discoveries are made. New insights arise. New paradigms overturn previous ways of thinking. So if we base our religious outlook on scientific findings, what will happen to our theology when the science changes?

Think about what happened to religion when the Copernican revolution occurred, or when Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published. They upset the apple cart, and forced religion to change. Most people either denied these findings and held onto their deeply-held beliefs, or used these findings to reject religion entirely.
<snip>
2. Science and religion are two different ways of thinking. Don't conflate them.

Using science to prove God's existence confuses two very different ways of thinking. Science progresses as new hypotheses get tested, questioned, refuted, expanded upon, discarded, and revised.

Religion, on the other hand, is a way to make sense of the world. It is an appreciation of awe and mystery, justice and compassion.

In other words, science is a search for truth, while religion is a search for meaning.
Click to expand...

another who disagrees, this time from the science side, is Lawrence Krauss, Physics professor at Arizona State University
To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.
<snip>
Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers.
Click to expand...
my emphasis
 
Somerville said:
On Christmas Day, the Wall Street Journal posted a piece written by Eric Metaxas, "author, speaker and TV host" in which he argues that science is coming closer and closer to "proving" the existence of a Creator. This has caused a bit of a kerfuffle on the internets, to say the least.

One man who disagrees, does so from the religious side of the question: Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman

another who disagrees, this time from the science side, is Lawrence Krauss, Physics professor at Arizona State University my emphasis
Click to expand...

The odds of life forming without God's intervention are of course zero.
 
Paleocon said:
The odds of life forming without God's intervention are of course zero.
Click to expand...

For some reason, those who are actually carrying out research on the matter disagree with you and other creationists - no matter which religion is used for making similar claims.
 
RAMOSS said:
Care to prove that??
Click to expand...

A thing cannot give what it does not have.

Somerville said:
For some reason, those who are actually carrying out research on the matter disagree with you and other creationists - no matter which religion is used for making similar claims.
Click to expand...

No one is researching how life arises. Making stupid comments is not research.
 
Paleocon said:
A thing cannot give what it does not have.
Click to expand...

That sentence seems to have gotten away from you. This does not seem to have any semantic value. Show it's relevancy to the your claim, and then show that it is indeed true.



No one is researching how life arises. Making stupid comments is not research.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of the research that is being done on abiogensis does not mean that people are not investigating it. ANd yes, your comments are not research.
 
RAMOSS said:
That sentence seems to have gotten away from you. This does not seem to have any semantic value. Show it's relevancy to the your claim, and then show that it is indeed true.





No one is researching how life arises. Making stupid comments is not research.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

It's truth is evident, like 2^4=16. It shows that life cannot arise naturally from non-life.
 

It's truth is evident, like 2^4=16. It shows that life cannot arise naturally from non-life.[/QUOTE]


I find when someone say 'Truth is evident', they can't show it to be true. Thank you for avoiding the answers, and showing you have nothing except mindless rhetoric.
 
Paleocon said:
A thing cannot give what it does not have.



No one is researching how life arises. Making stupid comments is not research.
Click to expand...

Funny how some who use the internets to participate in online discussions, don't seem to grasp the concept of search engines which are so readily available

Google research on origins of life and you will find


The Geochemical Origins of Life by Michael J. Russell & Allan J. Hall

I suppose one might assume the list is only of imaginary projects since we have been told that "No one is researching how life arises" and it must be true, right?
 
Somerville said:
Funny how some who use the internets to participate in online discussions, don't seem to grasp the concept of search engines which are so readily available

Google research on origins of life and you will find


The Geochemical Origins of Life by Michael J. Russell & Allan J. Hall

I suppose one might assume the list is only of imaginary projects since we have been told that "No one is researching how life arises" and it must be true, right?
Click to expand...

Look, I'm only going to explain this once.

There's no research going on into the origin of life, because there's no way to do that. There's lots of speculation and discussion, but that's not research.
 
Paleocon said:
Look, I'm only going to explain this once.

There's no research going on into the origin of life, because there's no way to do that. There's lots of speculation and discussion, but that's not research.
Click to expand...

You really don't have a clue do you?
 
Paleocon said:
Look, I'm only going to explain this once.

There's no research going on into the origin of life, because there's no way to do that. There's lots of speculation and discussion, but that's not research.
Click to expand...

Evidence consists of observation and experimentation. Research that support various theories on the origins of life uses logic, math, observation, and analogical experimentation. You can find some of that research in "The origins of life" here in DP.
 
Somerville said:
Funny how some who use the internets to participate in online discussions, don't seem to grasp the concept of search engines which are so readily available

Google research on origins of life and you will find


The Geochemical Origins of Life by Michael J. Russell & Allan J. Hall

I suppose one might assume the list is only of imaginary projects since we have been told that "No one is researching how life arises" and it must be true, right?
Click to expand...

Lets not forget the "Origins of Life" thread here in DP also.
 
Paleocon said:
Well, I give up. One can't educate the willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

How does the 'fine tuning' argument help you? This is not the first time that 'fine tuning' has been quoted in here and, we have had posters who are happy to quote all these constants and be credulous about them being evidence of creation/design? It is really just another case of religious dogma making post hoc 'theories' from the hard work that Science does.

What is your evidence that the Universe is fine tuned for Us and that it is not Us that is fine tuned for the Universe?

If the Universe is fine tuned for life then why is so much of it inhospitable to life and if the Earth is fine tuned for Us then why is so much of the Earth inhospitable to Us?

If the probability of this Universe being exactly as it is is not 1 then where is the evidence of your other probabilities?

Exactly by how much can the parameters necessary for a planet to support life actually vary anyway?
 
William Rea said:
How does the 'fine tuning' argument help you? This is not the first time that 'fine tuning' has been quoted in here and, we have had posters who are happy to quote all these constants and be credulous about them being evidence of creation/design? It is really just another case of religious dogma making post hoc 'theories' from the hard work that Science does.

What is your evidence that the Universe is fine tuned for Us and that it is not Us that is fine tuned for the Universe?

If the Universe is fine tuned for life then why is so much of it inhospitable to life and if the Earth is fine tuned for Us then why is so much of the Earth inhospitable to Us?

If the probability of this Universe being exactly as it is is not 1 then where is the evidence of your other probabilities?

Exactly by how much can the parameters necessary for a planet to support life actually vary anyway?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing fine tuning. Whether or not a particular free neutron will decay within ten minutes is a matter of probability. What the rest mass of a neutron will be cannot be measured in terms of probability. It is as it is because God saw fit to make it that way. While it is true that a slight change in any of a wide array of physical constants would make the universe uninhabitable for us, this is not more of a proof of God's design than even the slightest amount of order in the universe, as the odds of any of it arising without him are zero, rather than very small. So too, while it is true that this is the only place where life can thrive, the odds of life arising on its own even in "perfect" conditions, is zero.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not arguing fine tuning. Whether or not a particular free neutron will decay within ten minutes is a matter of probability. What the rest mass of a neutron will be cannot be measured in terms of probability. It is as it is because God saw fit to make it that way. While it is true that a slight change in any of a wide array of physical constants would make the universe uninhabitable for us, this is not more of a proof of God's design than even the slightest amount of order in the universe, as the odds of any of it arising without him are zero, rather than very small. So too, while it is true that this is the only place where life can thrive, the odds of life arising on its own even in "perfect" conditions, is zero.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm OK with that. You are at least admitting that you have no evidence and are just asserting that it is like it is because 'Goddidit'.
 
William Rea said:
Actually, I'm OK with that. You are at least admitting that you have no evidence and are just asserting that it is like it is because 'Goddidit'.
Click to expand...

I also don't have evidence that 2^4=16. Mathematical or metaphysical claims do not require evidence.
 
Paleocon said:
A thing cannot give what it does not have.
Click to expand...

Pffftt. Nonsense. Happens all the time. Elementary particles give a material temperature. Yet elementary particles have no such temperature of their own. Embedding nitrogen molecules in steel gives steel incredible hardness. The nitrogen molecules have no such hardness of their own. Water is wet. Water flows. Water molecules have no such properties. Etc etc ad nauseum.

Emergence is a very common, well-understood natural phenomenon.
 
The typical explanation to fine-tuning dilemmas is that there were many opportunities.

Like drawing the ace of spades from a deck of cards. If you are only given one chance to draw, the odds of drawing the ace of spades is unlikely. If you are given hundreds of chances to draw a card from a deck, the odds of drawing the ace of spades at some point are very high.

Likewise, the odds of a planet having the conditions necessary for human-like life seems unlikely. But when you consider the staggering number of planets that exist, it's not surprising at all to find some with such Goldilocks conditions.

Or the fundamental constants of nature. Seems unlikely. But not if our "universe" is just one of many pockets of space each having different values of the fundamental constants (ie, a multiverse).
 
the_recruit said:
Pffftt. Nonsense. Happens all the time. Elementary particles give a material temperature. Yet elementary particles have no such temperature of their own. Embedding nitrogen molecules in steel gives steel incredible hardness. The nitrogen molecules have no such hardness of their own. Water is wet. Water flows. Water molecules have no such properties. Etc etc ad nauseum.

Emergence is a very common, well-understood natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Elementary particles have kinetic energy, which causes temperature.

How these molecular systems work does not refute that, as there functions follow from the lesser forms they are composed of. Life, on the other hand, operates on a level not indicated strictly by the lesser order.
 
Paleocon said:
I also don't have evidence that 2^4=16. Mathematical or metaphysical claims do not require evidence.
Click to expand...

Mathematics has proof.

You need to define 'metaphysical claims' before I can comment on that.
 
Paleocon said:
Elementary particles have kinetic energy, which causes temperature.
Click to expand...

Yes (classically, anyway). But kinetic energy is NOT temperature. By Leibnez's Law. Elementary particles are giving a material something which the elementary particles do not have. Your silly claim "a thing cannot give what it does not have" is completely and utterly false. It's pseudo-philosophical garbage that is proved wrong by everything around you.

Paleocon said:
How these molecular systems work does not refute that, as there functions follow from the lesser forms they are composed of. Life, on the other hand, operates on a level not indicated strictly by the lesser order.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same for life. Life is caused by nothing more than the underlying physical interactions among elementary particles. Yet all kinds of interesting and complex macroscopic phenomenon emerge from these interactions. There is no need for some magical, God-given "life-force" in order to have life.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
I also don't have evidence that 2^4=16. Mathematical or metaphysical claims do not require evidence.
Click to expand...

That's because 2^4=16 being true is contingent on the definitions of 2, ^, 4, =, 16. Once someone defines those concepts as they are, 2^4=16 becomes necessarily true. It follows deductively. It's a mathematical proof.

There are no such proofs in matters of the natural world. That a ball moves when I apply a force to it is not logically necessary. That's an empirical fact, it's a matter of observation. It's not a matter of reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom